the policy to them. They allege that the agent identified himself as representing NBA. They also allege that they had to become members of NBA in order to be eligible for the insurance. Indeed, membership dues were listed as part of the first premium, and Plaintiffs’ check was written out to NBA. Even if NBA’s primary purpose is not to provide insurance to- its ■ members, by recruiting members through insurance sales it has a motivation to increase the sales of. that insurance. These allegations could create liability for NBA through agency or respondeat superior principles. Given the alleged active participation, of NBA in the soliciting of new individual insureds, NBA could be considered an agent of American National. See Washington Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Burch, 293 F.2d 365 (5th Cir.1961)(<HOLDING>); Florentino v. Travelers Ins. Co., 448 F.Supp.
holding that insurance certificate holder could not maintain negligence action against insurer when certificate holder was not insurers customer did not discuss insurance coverage with insurer and did not make any specific request to procure insurance coverage holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims holding a georgia law requiring a plaintiff in a direct action against an insurance company to attach a copy of the insurance policy to his complaint inapplicable because it conflicts with rule 8