In the highly regulated and reputation-driven insurance industry, the accuracy of official documents can mean the difference between a thriving business and complete financial ruin. A recent lawsuit filed in federal court underscores this reality, as a once-successful Georgia insurance agent alleges that a single, allegedly false statement in a report issued by a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary triggered a catastrophic domino effect that dismantled his entire agency. The legal battle, initiated on January 23, 2026, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, pits agent Nigel Francis and his firm, Francis & Francis Insurance Agency, against biBERK Insurance Services, Inc. and its parent company, National Liability & Fire Insurance Company. At the heart of the complaint is the assertion that the defendants knowingly published defamatory information in an official loss-run report, a document widely circulated among industry carriers, leading directly to the swift and total collapse of Francis’s business. The case raises critical questions about an insurer’s duty of care and the profound consequences of administrative errors in a world where data integrity is paramount.
The Foundation of the Conflict
The dispute that ultimately led to the shuttering of a prosperous insurance agency began not with a complex financial transaction, but with a series of personal and professional accusations from a single third party. This initial complaint set in motion a chain of events that the plaintiff claims was mishandled from the outset, culminating in a professionally devastating outcome based on unverified information.
An Unraveling of Allegations
The origin of the conflict dates back to September 4, 2024, when a third party named Angelyn Hart contacted biBERK, which provided errors and omissions (E&O) insurance to Nigel Francis. Hart lodged a series of serious complaints against the agent, blending deeply personal grievances with professional ones. The lawsuit details that her accusations included claims of stalking and harassment, matters that would typically fall outside the scope of a professional liability policy. However, she also alleged that Francis had improperly rated the insurance policy for her Maserati, which she claimed caused the policy to be canceled. According to the legal filing, Francis contends that these accusations were rooted in a personal dispute and were not reflective of his professional conduct or the services rendered. This mixture of personal and professional claims created a complex situation for the E&O provider, which was now tasked with investigating a matter that spanned beyond typical insurance practices and into the realm of interpersonal conflict, a distinction that would become central to the ensuing legal battle. The plaintiff’s case hinges on the argument that the insurer failed to properly segregate and verify these distinct types of allegations.
According to the lawsuit, evidence that directly contradicted Hart’s professional claims was made available to biBERK almost immediately, raising questions about the insurer’s subsequent actions. On September 5, 2024, just one day after Hart’s complaint, another insurer, Hagerty Insurance, allegedly confirmed in a recorded conversation that the auto policy in question was, in fact, still active. This crucial piece of information was further corroborated by Hart’s own police report filed that same day, which reportedly acknowledged her coverage remained in effect. The legal filing also states that a senior claims representative at biBERK provided Francis with assurances, allegedly telling him that the issue was clearly personal and would therefore not affect his E&O policy. Even the insurer’s own formal correspondence seemed to reflect uncertainty. A “Reservation of Rights” letter issued by biBERK on October 10, 2024, reportedly characterized Hart’s statements merely as unverified “allegations.” This body of early evidence, from multiple sources including the insurer itself, suggested that the claim of a policy cancellation due to improper rating was, at best, unsubstantiated and, at worst, demonstrably false at the time it was being reviewed.
The Report That Toppled a Business
Despite possessing multiple pieces of contradictory evidence, biBERK proceeded to issue an official loss-run report on March 21, 2025, that contained a statement with devastating consequences. The report declared as an established fact that Francis had “rated the insurance incorrectly causing [Hart’s] policy to be cancelled.” In the insurance industry, a loss-run report is a critical document that details a policyholder’s claims history and is frequently requested by carriers when appointing a new producer or renewing a contract. Its contents are often taken as gospel, directly influencing an agent’s ability to conduct business. The distribution of this particular report throughout the industry network acted as a poison pill for Francis’s agency. The lawsuit alleges that this single sentence, presented as a verified finding rather than an unproven allegation, directly triggered the collapse of a business that had been, until that point, highly successful and profitable, generating significant monthly premiums and enjoying stable relationships with multiple major insurance carriers.
The professional fallout from the loss-run report was both immediate and catastrophic, creating a chain reaction that the agency could not survive. Upon receiving the document, Progressive Insurance, a major partner, promptly terminated its producer appointment with Francis & Francis Insurance Agency. This initial termination sent shockwaves through the agent’s network of carriers. Soon after, other insurance companies followed suit, either severing their existing relationships with the agency or refusing to quote any new business submitted by Francis. This effectively cut off the agency’s lifeblood, as it could no longer place policies for its clients. By March 2025, the business, which had consistently been generating up to $400,000 in monthly premiums, was forced to cease all operations. The lawsuit further highlights the defendants’ alleged inaction, noting that even after Hagerty provided written confirmation in July 2025 that Hart’s policy was never canceled for rating issues, the damaging and allegedly false loss-run report remained uncorrected, continuing to circulate within the industry and solidifying the damage to Francis’s professional reputation.
The Legal Aftermath and Demands
With the business in ruins, the focus shifted from operational survival to legal recourse. The lawsuit filed against the Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries outlines a series of specific legal claims aimed at holding the insurers accountable for the alleged damages and forcing a correction of the public record that precipitated the agency’s collapse.
A Foundation of Legal Claims
The lawsuit brought by Nigel Francis and his firm is built upon several distinct legal pillars, each targeting a different aspect of the defendants’ alleged misconduct. The primary claim is defamation, which centers on the publication of the statement in the loss-run report that Francis had incorrectly rated a policy, causing its cancellation. The plaintiffs argue this statement was false, presented as fact, and directly harmed their professional reputation. A second major claim is for tortious interference with business relations, which asserts that the defendants’ defamatory report intentionally and improperly caused other carriers like Progressive to terminate their valuable business contracts with the agency. Furthermore, the suit includes a count of negligent misrepresentation, alleging that biBERK failed to exercise reasonable care in communicating information and should have known its report was inaccurate. Finally, the complaint alleges a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a principle inherent in insurance contracts that requires an insurer to act fairly toward its policyholder and not do anything to injure their rights to receive the benefits of the policy.
The plaintiffs’ case is significantly bolstered by the allegation that the defendants failed to amend the damaging report even after receiving definitive proof of its inaccuracy. According to the court filing, this proof came in July 2025, when Hagerty Insurance provided written confirmation that Angelyn Hart’s policy had never been canceled due to rating issues. This was months after the loss-run report had already been circulated and had caused the initial wave of contract terminations. The lawsuit contends that this new, unequivocal evidence should have prompted an immediate retraction and correction of the report by biBERK. However, the damaging document allegedly remained in circulation without any amendment. This failure to act, the plaintiffs argue, demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth and for the professional well-being of their policyholder. It transforms the issue from a potential one-time error into a sustained pattern of negligence, strengthening the claims of bad faith and potentially exposing the defendants to greater liability, including punitive damages designed to punish and deter such conduct in the future.
The Pursuit of Justice and Rectification
In response to the alleged damages, the lawsuit sought a comprehensive array of remedies aimed at both financial compensation and the restoration of professional standing. The plaintiffs requested compensatory damages to cover the direct financial losses incurred from the collapse of the agency, which was previously generating substantial revenue. They also sought consequential and special damages, which could encompass a broader range of losses that were a direct result of the defendants’ actions, including lost future earnings and other predictable financial harms. Perhaps most significantly, the legal action called for punitive damages, which are awarded not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant for particularly egregious or malicious conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future. Beyond monetary relief, the lawsuit also pursued an equitable remedy. It asked the court for an official order compelling the defendants to formally retract the false entries in the loss-run report and issue a corrected version to all parties who had received the original. This action was crucial for any attempt to rebuild the agent’s reputation within the insurance industry. The defendants had not yet issued a formal response to the wide-ranging allegations, and the case had not been decided.
