The General Insurance Council of Manitoba has fined Peter Leung $1,000 after Leung was investigated for presenting an incomplete application to a client and subsequently filling in the notes section of the application with false information pertaining to the electrical and plumbing in the building being insured.
A level 2 general insurance agent, employed with his company from April 2000 until January 2024 when he was terminated, Leung was reported to the Manitoba council after he “knowingly altered an insurance quote by adding inaccurate handwritten details about the risk after the [prospective insured] had signed the document. The altered quote was then submitted to the insurer for binding,” the decision states.
The transgression occurred after a longtime client of the agency sold 50 per cent of its 11-unit commercial apartment building to the client whose insurance was later terminated. The application indicated that the building had 100-amp breakers and copper plumbing, both updated in 1990. The insurer provided a commercial quote dependent on confirmation that the risk did not include fuses, aluminum or knob and tube wiring or galvanized steel or cast-iron plumbing. Later that month, the insured client signed an application without the notes section requesting details about the electrical and plumbing.
That same day the former licensee asked for additional building details. By email the client responded saying there was a fuse box in the mechanical room and that the plumbing supply lines were also galvanized. Despite this, Leung wrote ‘no’ in the section asking for these details.
Two months later in December that year, a loss control inspector notified the insurer that the building was under renovation and contained fuses. A scope of renovations requested by the insurer also indicated that a full replacement of the building’s hot and cold water supply lines was needed.
In his defense, Leung said the new client struggled with the survey, so he completed it using his prior knowledge of the property. (He blamed the previous owner’s file.) He also said he was under pressure from the client and the client’s lawyer over a tight possession deadline. Additionally, Leung said he missed an email from the insurer due to system changes and his upcoming vacation. “Upon returning, he met with management and was terminated,” the decision notes.
“Although the insured had communicated details about the presence of fuses and galvanized plumbing, the former licensee did not forward this critical information to the insurer,” the decision states. “His decision to alter the application using outdated data, rather than verifying current details, was negligent and demonstrated a lack of due diligence.”
