of the other in the remainder of the matters involved. 100 S.W.2d at 612 (emphasis added). Of particular importance here, Gilbert held that this means a broker “may be the agent of the insured in taking and placing the application and of the [insurer] in the issuance and delivery of the policy and the collection of the premiums thereon.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Jeffery E. Thomas & Francis J. Mootz, III, New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition 2-23 (2011) (stating “[b]rokers are typically insurers’ agents with respect to issuing policies, issuing certificates of insurance, collecting premiums and the like”). Other cases have held that, as a result, a broker’s role as agent of the insured normally ends upon procurement of the insurance. See, e.g., Hecker, 891 S.W.2d at 816 (<HOLDING>); Morrow v. Loeffler, 297 S.W.2d 549, 552-58
holding fjraud on the part of the insured in the procurement of the policy  is sufficient to defeat a recovery in an action on such policy holding that agreements established agency relationship holding the agency relationship ceases on execution and delivery of the policy to the insured holding that regardless of the subjective belief of the insured the record established a basis to believe that the insured had committed an act that could give rise to a claim under the policy holding that the policy language expected or intended by an insured person is unambiguous and requires a subjective intent on behalf of the insured