A firm must not, in connection with any claim, put itself in a position where its own interest, or its duty to any person for whom it acts, conflicts with its duty to any policyholder for whom it acts, unless:
A firm must decline to act for the person or policyholder referred to in (1), or any of them, unless in the particular circumstances of the case disclosure and informed consent are sufficient to enable it to reconcile the conflict.
A firm should consider whether it is possible to manage the conflict by disclosing the conflict to the policyholder and obtaining his consent. Where a firm acts for a policyholder in arranging a policy, it is likely to be the agent for the policyholder in connection with the preparation and handling of any claim against the insurer. If the firm intends to be the agent of an insurer in relation to claims under that policy, it will need to consider whether it is at risk of putting itself in the position where it cannot act without some breach of duty either to the insurer or the policyholder. The firm should consider whether disclosure and consent are sufficient to reconcile the conflicting obligations. An example of a circumstance in which disclosure and consent are unlikely to be sufficient and when a firm may well consider it should not act for the insurer or the policyholder or either, is where the firm knows that the policyholder will, to obtain a quick payment, accept a low amount in settlement of a claim and also knows the insurer is willing to settle for a higher amount.