In the text case Mais,et al. ,v.Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America,the plaintiff sued claiming the defendant was responsible for acts of its former employee,even though he was not employed by the defendant at the time of the alleged acts.Which of the following was the result?
A)The defendant was not held liable because the former employee's act exceeded the scope of his employment.
B)The defendant was held vicariously liable for the acts of its former employee because it did not notify customers that the agent had been terminated.
C)The defendant was not held liable because the plaintiff should have known the employee was no longer employed by the defendant.
D)The defendant was held strictly liable because the nature of the acts involved were inherently dangerous.
E)The defendant was not held liable because it had no reason to know a former employee was stealing from its clients.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The court held that since the company did not inform its customers that the employee had been terminated,it was vicariously liable for his actions."Apparent authority can survive termination of actual authority when the change in actual authority is not communicated to a third party.From Mais's perspective,Fabian had apparent authority to accept Mais's checks in 2008."
B)The court held that since the company did not inform its customers that the employee had been terminated,it was vicariously liable for his actions."Apparent authority can survive termination of actual authority when the change in actual authority is not communicated to a third party.From Mais's perspective,Fabian had apparent authority to accept Mais's checks in 2008."

In the Text Case Mais,et Al