[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-278823-105":53,"doc-detail-278823-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","frederick-fisher-professional-liability-insurance-case-citation-blanket-broker-of-record-letters","Frederick Fisher Professional Liability Insurance Case Citation - Blanket Broker of Record Letters","","12.2 Blanket Broker of Record Letters explains how Capitol sought CMM’s cooperation to issue joint blanket letters to insurers changing the broker of record from CMM to Capitol for all insured persons and entities. The blanket approach was contrasted with less efficient individual broker of record letters requiring separate data and outreach. CMM refused, arguing blanket letters would increase errors and omissions exposure, while experts Fred Fisher and Andrew Barile disputed reasonableness and industry acceptance. The text also weighs testimony credibility from CMM leadership and counsel and concludes the agreement intended reasonable cooperation during business transition.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/frederick-fisher-professional-liability-insurance-case-citation-blanket-broker-of-record-letters/278823/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/frederick-fisher-professional-liability-insurance-case-citation-blanket-broker-of-record-letters/278823.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Arica Lee","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What was the purpose of Capitol and CMM jointly issuing blanket broker of record letters?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"They were intended to notify each insurer that Capitol was separating from CMM and that Capitol, not CMM, would be the broker of record for all insureds covered by that carrier.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"Why did Capitol prefer a blanket letter over individual broker of record letters?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"A single blanket letter could authorize broker-of-record changes for all relevant insureds with the insurer using one request, avoiding the inefficiency of preparing and sending separate letters for each insured.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How did CMM justify refusing to sign blanket broker of record letters?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"CMM argued that executing blanket letters would expose it to errors and omissions liability claims by the insureds, and supported this position through expert and executive testimony.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},278823,1790204182,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":141,"read_time":73},8796096645457,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/800003749518d68ffe3?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779345340919836971","12.2 Blanket Broker of Record Letters.  \nIn addition to seeking its own customer records and data, Capitol, asked CMM to sign, jointly with Capitol, Blanket Broker of Record Letters (BBRL) to insurers which were providing insurance to Capitol's clients. The purpose of such letters was to jointly inform each such carrier that Capitol was separating from CMM and that Capitol, not CMM, would be the broker of record, i.e. the firm recognized by the insurance carrier as the insured's broker for the insurance written by the carrier. Capitol wanted such letters to be \"blanket\" letters, meaning that a single such joint letter from CMM and Capitol to a single insurer would request and authorize the change, at the insurer, of the identity of the broker of record from CMM to Capitol for all persons and entities insured by that carrier with the broker of record listed as CMM. Such a blanket letter would provide to the insurer all necessary data respecting each and every person or party insured and the policies issued to them by the subject insurance earner.  \nThe efficiency of listing all such insureds in one joint blanket letter is obvious. The alternative, and less efficient method of effecting the necessary change of the broker of record was to prepare a separate letter for each and every insured and to attach thereto the data for that single insured and to send that individual broker of record letter (IBRL) to the subject carrier. Instead of using one blanket letter for each insurance carrier, individual letters would be needed for each and every insured.  \nCMM insisted that only individual not blanket, broker of record letters could be signed by CCM. With its access to the necessary data on its database, CMM could have prepared and signed BBRL readily as requested by Capitol. Instead, by insisting on individual letters and simultaneously blocking Capitol's access to the data necessary for the preparations of such letters, CMM substantially interfered with Capitol's efforts to move its business out of CMM as  \na viable business.  \nOf course, the more difficult and more time consuming it was for Capitol to move a client out of CMM, the greater the opportunity was for CMM that the insured might never move with Capitol.  \nThe Agreement did not directly address this matter of broker of record letters but did provide that Capitol owned all of its customer records and data, owned its own Book of Business, and could terminate its relationship with CMM at any time. 􀀁 therefore find that the clear intent of the Agreement was that CMM cooperate in facilitating the transition of Capitol's Book of Business to Capitol upon its termination of the Agreement and that 􀀃􀀄􀀄 act reasonably in so doing.  \nCMM defends its refusal to sign 􀀅oint blanket broker of record letters by claiming that execution of BBRL by CMM would expose CMM to errors andomissions liability claims by the insured's involved. This squarely posed the issue of whether or not Capitol's request for BBRL was reasonable and whether CMM's refusal to provide them was not. Both parties offered expert testimony on this key issue. Both Capitol's expert, Mr. Fred Fisher and CMM's expert, Mr. Andrew Barile   are very experienced and qualified, generally, in the insurance industry. Mr. Fisher   had more qualifications and experience directly applicable to the issue of BBRL in   the context of this dispute.   \n Mr. Fisher had impressive credentials and testified confidently,   knowledgeably and articulately about BBRL. He said that BBR letters are not   common because the situation of a broker leaving one firm and taking his insurance   customers with him or her is not a common occurrence. However, he said such   letters are appropriate and acceptable and are used in the industry in such situations.   \n .Mr. Fisher's testimony was clear persuasive and had the virtue of comporting with   common sense.   \nCMM's expert on BBRL, Mr. Barile, was familiar with the insurance  \nbusiness at a very high lev","cbCaioEnDC59in41","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioEnDC59in41","pdf",64619,6,"English","# Blanket Broker of Record Letters\n## Purpose of joint blanket letters\n## Comparison with individual broker of record letters\n## Reasonableness of refusing blanket letters\n## Expert testimony and credibility considerations","[{\"question\":\"What was the purpose of Capitol and CMM jointly issuing blanket broker of record letters?\",\"answer\":\"They were intended to notify each insurer that Capitol was separating from CMM and that Capitol, not CMM, would be the broker of record for all insureds covered by that carrier.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did Capitol prefer a blanket letter over individual broker of record letters?\",\"answer\":\"A single blanket letter could authorize broker-of-record changes for all relevant insureds with the insurer using one request, avoiding the inefficiency of preparing and sending separate letters for each insured.\"},{\"question\":\"How did CMM justify refusing to sign blanket broker of record letters?\",\"answer\":\"CMM argued that executing blanket letters would expose it to errors and omissions liability claims by the insureds, and supported this position through expert and executive testimony.\"}]","Frederick Fisher Professional Liability Insurance Case Citation - Blanket Broker of Record Letters | PDF",1789512795]