was “all set” and that Walker “just need[ed] that social to get [Kersh’s] spouse enrolled.” (Compl. Ex. C.) These allegations, if proven, may be sufficient to establish that Walker agreed to procure insurance for Mr. Kersh, giving rise to a duty “to use reasonable diligence in attempting to place the requested insurance and to inform the client promptly if unable to do so.” May, 844 S.W.2d at 669. If Plaintiff can prove that Mr. Kersh did request $750,000 in life insurance on his enrollment form, a jury could find that Walker was negligent for failing to procure said insurance or, at the very least, for failing to inform Mr. Kersh in a timely manner that he would be unable to do so and instead telling him that he was “all set.” See Burroughs v. Bunch, 210 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Tex.App.1948) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Conner, 403 S.W.2d 453, 458
holding that murder committed by customer was not foreseeable result of excessive sale of alcohol to customer holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes holding that when the house  is destroyed by fire and there exists thereon a policy by insurance the money arising therefrom stands in the place instead of such house  the proceeds of the policy therefore take the place of the property loss holding agent liable for fire damage after his customer requested a new policy to replace one cancelled by the insurer and the agent neither procured such a replacement policy nor alerted the customer to this failure by returning the unearned portion of the premium from the original policy holding agent liable for fire damage to the house his customer was building when the agent after agreeing to have a builders risk policy issued on the house failed to notify the customer that he had not procured such a policy