The Court of Appeal initially reversed a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, finding that the insurance agent who fraudulently induced plaintiff to enter into unsuitable annuities rather than the life insurance he had requested was an insurance broker, not a true agent, and that the insurer defendant therefore was not liable for the agent’s fraud.  The Supreme Court granted review and remanded for reconsideration in light of Ins. Code 1704.5, among other statutes.  Section 1704.5 provides that an agent who has not been appointed for the insurer may nevertheless present a proposal to the insured and insurer, and if they both accept, the agent is treated as the insurer’s agent.  Given that statute, the court on a second try, affirms the judgment against the insurance company, holding it liable for the agent’s fraud and elder abuse as well as upholding the jury’s award of emotional distress damages.  However, it reverses the award of punitive damages finding no clear and convincing evidence that any manager of the insurance company knew of or ratified the agent’s fraudulent conduct until after served with the complaint.