it of the risk of pecuniary loss that existed in the performance of its duties in brokering the plan. Gallagher avers that the Diocese breached its fiduciary duty by failing to inform it that Gallagher might be liable to cover certain losses incurred from the activities of pedophilic priests. This breach, Gallagher claims, precludes the Diocese from relying on the express warranty to argue that Gallagher is liable for the Diocese’s uninsured losses. Gallagher is correct that it was the agent of the Diocese. See Motors Ins. Co. v. Bud’s Boat Rental, Inc., 917 F.2d 199, 204 (5th Cir.1990) (noting that under Louisiana law, an insurance broker is generally deemed to be the agent of the insured rather than the insurer); Tassin v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 649 So.2d 1050, 1054 (La.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). Its agency argument fails, though — at least
holding insureds claim against insurance agent for negligent misrepresentation not preempted by erisa agent told insured he would be covered for workrelated injuries when he in fact was not 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 insurance agent has no duty to advise insured of amount of insurance necessary to cover all potential losses 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 insurance broker is generally agent of insured