administering group insurance policies, including the payment of premiums, and that accordingly the insurer shares responsibility for the employer’s mistakes.”). There is also case law from other jurisdictions which holds that an employer does not act as the agent of an insurance company that has issued a group policy. See Hayes v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 899 F.2d 684, 686 (7th Cir.1990) (“According to Indiana law, when an employer acts as the middleman between an insurance company and its employees, the employer is the agent of the employees, not the insurance carrier.”). These two approaches to the characterization of the employer have been described respectively as the minority and majority rules. See Bowes v. Lakeside Industries, Inc., 297 Minn. 86, 209 N.W.2d 900, 902 n. 1 (1973) (<HOLDING>). See generally Comment, Group Insurance:
holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work holding that admonishment for breach of insurers obligation to insured is not applicable to equitable share dispute between insurers holding that the employer may be considered the insurers agent where the employer with the consent of the insurer performs routine administrative functions such as assisting in the processing of claims holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees holding that the employer was not the insurers agent