A second B.C. insurance broker has been disciplined in a case involving the breach of a prospective client’s privacy.
Teresa Anne Cantin, a salesperson for an unnamed brokerage, was fined $1,000 and ordered to undergo privacy training for her role in giving out a client’s private information to a former supervisor, Sheilah Elizabeth Egan.
Egan and Cantin used to work together before Egan moved to Coast Capital Insurance Services in September 2010. While at Coastal, Egan received information about a prospective client in a broadcast email, which indicated the prospect did business at her old agency. Egan emailed Cantin, who used to report to Egan, and asked for the client’s renewal premium and the name of the insurer on risk.
Cantin emailed back with the information an hour later. Egan then asked for information about the client’s house and barn, and Cantin provided the information to Egan by email the following morning. By this point, Egan realized she had gone too far and stopped pursuing the client’s business. (continued)#pb#
Coast had Egan undertake ethics and privacy training through tutorials. Council found Coast’s response to the incident was appropriate, and tacked on a $2,500 fine and a license restriction that prevents her from representing anyone other than Coast clients.
In a separate decision released on March 18, the Insurance Council of B.C. found that Cantin had breached the client’s privacy by providing the confidential information to Egan.
“In determining whether [Cantin] knowingly breached the client's privacy, Council concluded [Cantin] was asked to provide information to a former supervisor and friend, and it accepted that because of this relationship, the licensee mistakenly assumed the required authorization had been secured from the client,” Council ruled.
Council said Cantin, who had nine years of industry experience, “should have known better than to give out a client's information without confirming that she was authorized to do so.” She also should have known she was acting contrary to agency procedures regarding client confidentiality, Council added.
In fact, Cantin had given out a client’s confidential information to a different former agency employee on previous occasions. “On these occasions, the licensee confirmed with the former employee that authorization was obtained from the clients for the release of their information,” Council found. “The licensee did not have an explanation as to why she confirmed client authorization on these occasions, but failed to confirm the existence of an authorization when responding to the former supervisor's request.”
