Insurance is determined based on the risk of the environment and is estimated to anticipate losses that could financially damage the insurers future. Because of the unanticipated risk involved I highly recommend that the law imposes a duty to insurance agent to become “liable for failure to advise a client of every possible insurance option, and the insured would be relieved of any burden to take care of his or her own financial needs and expectations.” (Jentz,2010,Pg1003) Unfortunate losses such as in the case of John L. Jones vs. Debra Kennedy explains a situation where the “insured claimed that the agent was liable for failing to produce underinsured motorist coverage in response to the insured’s request for “full coverage” on his vehicle.” (Jones v. Kennedy,2006)
Intestacy laws give spouses, children, grandchildren, or other family ...view middle of the document...
And other states such as Colorado, Delaware, Texas, Virginia, and Washington have “amended their intestacy laws to allow posthumously conceived children to inherit. In the verdict of Beeler vs. Astrue ruled in the state of Iowa, denied the Social Security Act due to the fact that “Iowa did not recognize the parent-child relationship for posthumously conceived children.”(A growing debate, 2011)
The Majority of courts today hold accountants liable to third parties for “negligence.” (Jentz,2010,Pg975) There are three views that states accountants to be held liable to third parties. First, the restatement of torts not only is subject to liability to their clients but also to their users. For example, we know that processing a loan can become a long term process for approval. If the accountant “makes negligence misstatements or omissions in the statement, the bank may hold the accountant liable because he knew that the bank would rely on his work product when deciding whether to make the loan.” (Jentz,2010,Pg977) A second view of accountant’s negligence is the liability to reasonably foreseeable users. Users, relied on accountants “statements or reports” (Jentz,2010,Pg977) “The majority of courts have concluded that the Restatement approach is the more reasonable one because it allows accountants to control their exposure to liability. Liability is fixed by the accountant’s particular knowledge at the moment the audit is published, not only by the foreseeability of the harm that might occur to a third is party after the report released.” (Jentz,2010,Pg977)
Policies that courts must balance in determining whether third parties can recover from accountants for losses caused by the accountant’s negligence would apply to “The Ultramares Rule” and “The Restatement Rule.” (Jentz,2010,Pg976) For example in the case of Ultramares v.Touch The Ultramares Rule was exercised when the accountant assigned to Touch, Niven & Company had prepared the balance sheet with assets exceeding liabilities when in reality liabilities exceeded assets.