of periodic installments.”). 7 . Presumably, plaintiffs' claim for charging an allegedly excessive interest rate is directed against the lenders, and not the individual defendants, whose liability is proposed to stem from their failure to disclose that the interest rate was excessive. The rates for these plaintiffs' loans are clearly set forth in the loan documents and plaintiffs certainly were free to judge for themselves whether they thought the rates reasonable. 8 . Of course, it is recognized in this state that by offering an insurer’s credit insurance policy to a borrower, the lender (and its employee) becomes the borrower’s agent for purposes of procuring the coverage so offered and requested. See, e.g., Estate of Jackson v. Mississippi Life Ins. Co., 755 So.2d 15, 21 (Miss.1999) (<HOLDING>); First United Bank of Poplarville v. Reid, 612
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 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 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 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