under the contract of indebtedness.”); see Miss.Code Ann. § 83-53-7(2) ("The total amount of periodic indemnity payable by credit disability insurance, in the event of disability, ... shall not exceed the aggregate of the periodic scheduled unpaid installments of indebtedness, and the amount of each periodic indemnity shall not exceed the total amount repayable divided by the numbe o.2d 1131, 1137 (Miss.1992) ("An insurance agent owes the duty to his principal to exercise good faith and reasonable diligence to procure insurance on the best terms he can obtain, and any negligence or other breach of duty on his part which defeats the insurance he procures will render him liable for the resulting loss.”); Parnell v. First Savings and Loan Assoc. of Leakesville, 336 So.2d 764 (Miss.1976) (<HOLDING>). There is no issue in this case of the
holding that the employer created an erisa plan when it 1 paid for the employees insurance 2 contracted with the insurance company for coverage and eligibility requirements and 3 collected and remitted the employees dependents premiums holding that since credit life insurance was obtained by lender a reasonable fairminded juror would almost have to find that the lenders employee became the borrowers agent for the purpose of procuring it but also noting that if a bank employee is authorized to sell credit life insurance on the banks loans  the employee is an agent for both the insurance company as well as the bank holding that an order requiring a party to purchase life insurance to secure a support obligation must have the requisite evidentiary basis and reversing for further proceedings to reevaluate the life insurance requirement set forth to secure child support obligations holding that where lender financed collected and retained one years premium on credit life insurance for borrower it assumed a contractual obligation to obtain credit life insurance for such borrower and to apply the amounts so received to credit life insurance and  it stood in a fiduciary capacity towards the borrower to see that the amount so charged collected and withheld were actually applied to obtaining and purchasing such insurance holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued