Do brokers or insurers own the customer relationship? A court may decide

BrokerLink and The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group appear headed towards a court resolution regarding the question: Who owns the relationship with a client? The brokerage or the insurance company?

The dispute turns on whether or not BrokerLink has exclusive authority to communicate with its customers about their renewal options following BrokerLink’s termination of its contract with The Commonwell, effective Jan. 1, 2026.

The end of the broker agreement means the brokerage no longer sells The Commonwell’s insurance policies to its clients.

BrokerLink’s agreement with The Commonwell states the brokerage is solely responsible for telling their clients about their policy renewal options once the brokerage-insurer contract is terminated. That includes clients who currently hold The Commonwell policies, the brokerage contends.

But in late 2025, both BrokerLink and The Commonwell sent out notices to BrokerLink’s clients about their renewal options.

BrokerLink has 12,600 customers with Commonwell policies, court documents show. In October 2025, The Commonwell sent notifications to 700 customers facing forthcoming renewal deadlines.

Also, on Nov. 27, 2025, The Commonwell sent a notice to all Commonwell customers with BrokerLink. In that letter, The Commonwell told its mutual policyholders BrokerLink would be “seeking to move your coverage to another insurance provider at the time of renewal.” It went on to say its “policyholders are entitled to choose the insurer that they want to provide coverage to them.”

BrokerLink sued for breach of contract, saying The Commonwell is not allowed to solicit or market to the brokerage’s customers.

“I am satisfied that both BrokerLink and Commonwell have arguable positions as to the proper interpretation of the [cancelled broker] agreement and whether Commonwell was entitled to communicate with customers in the way that it did,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Eugenia (Gina) Papageorgiou ruled. “Thus, BrokerLink has established a serious issue to be tried.”

Nevertheless, BrokerLink didn’t convince the court the harm it suffered met the legal threshold required to order an injunction. Such a ruling would have prohibited The Commonwell from soliciting or marketing to BrokerLink’s customers about their renewal options.

First, the court noted, BrokerLink had only lost five customers after terminating the agreement with The Commonwell. And it did not convince the court that these lost clients were related to The Commonwell’s communications.

Second, the court found, “the fact that Commonwell advised BrokerLink in September that it intended to provide notifications and that BrokerLink did not object until November 2025 undermines its argument as to irreparable harm.

“One would have thought if the damage was so irreparable, [BrokerLink’s representative] would not have initially only requested that Commonwell refrain from engaging in any communications until 45 days before the insurance policy was up for renewal or that he would ask to see the communication that Commonwell planned to send.”

Consequently, the court found BrokerLink did not meet the legal threshold of “irreparable harm” required to issue an injunction.

Moving forward

But the decision does not pass judgment on the central breach-of-contract claim and who owns the relationship with the clients. BrokerLink told Canadian Underwriter it intends to pursue the matter further in court.

“The court has not decided the underlying claims, including whether The Commonwell breached its agreement with BrokerLink,” BrokerLink president Joe D’Annunzio tells CU. “So, BrokerLink has issued a statement of claim against Commonwell, and we intend to pursue this case very vigorously.” 

The Commonwell president and CEO Tim Shauf tells CU the insurer is on notice that it will be served with BrokerLink’s statement of claim.

“At this point, we are not aware of having been served with a statement of claim,” Shauf said. “We have been given to understand that we should expect such. But if that were to happen, we will vigorously defend it.”

What’s at stake?

Colin Simpson, CEO of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, tells CU the broker association has its eye on this case because of what the outcome means for the broker channel.

The entire relationship of trust that consumers have with their brokers is at stake, Simpson says. He was speaking generally and not about the fact situation in the case.

He notes consumers trust brokers to provide choice and advice, and this is enshrined in regulations such as the Fair Treatment of Customers guidelines issued by the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators.

But if insurance companies control the relationship with consumers, that would de-stabilize the broker distribution model by eroding customers’ trust in brokers, Simpson says.

“When you get into canceled contracts [between brokerages and insurers], there are all sorts of reasons as to why a contract can get canceled,” he tells CU. Those reasons may include operational considerations, business strategy, service issues, or soured business relationships, among others.

“Regardless of the reason for the cancelation, the consumer has to be treated fairly,” Simpson says.

Once a contract is terminated and the transition of customers’ policies occurs, the responsibility for advising customers “falls back on the broker,” Simpsons says. “Because the broker is the trusted party at this particular point in time to provide advice to the consumer….

“There’s no expectation that an insurance company would step in and contact that customer…to provide different advice or recommend [for the consumer] to go to a different broker.”

Just as insurance companies offer a variety of different choices and value propositions to consumers, so too do brokerages, Simpson says.

And so, if insurance companies were to ask consumers to go to different brokerages to maintain the consumer’s business, “an insurance company is then not giving the same choice to that consumer,” Simpson says. “From a ‘fair treatment of customers’ perspective, they should not be doing that.”

There is a caveat, Simpson says. It’s assumed the brokerage is doing the right thing for the consumer. And so if the consumer wants to remain with that insurance company, then the brokerage should make best efforts to help that consumer do that.   

Background

In BrokerLink v. The Commonwell, BrokerLink asked the Ontario Superior Court for an injunction to prevent The Commonwell from soliciting or marketing its products to the brokerage’s clients.

BrokerLink’s agreement with the mutual insurer states: “The BROKER will within thirty (30) days of receipt of such [contract] termination notice inform the COMPANY [The Commonwell] in writing of his/her undertaking to replace the policies with an alternate insurer and shall assume full responsibility for advising each insured at least forty-five (45) days prior to the expiry date of their coverage.”

Section 9.5 of the contract allows The Commonwell to inform its policyholders about their renewal options only if the brokerage fails to meet its obligations to inform its clients and arrange for separate coverage according to the 45-day timeline.

“It is BrokerLink’s position that it makes the introduction of the customer to Commonwell and that customers that it introduces to Commonwell were [the brokerage’s] customers,” the court decision reads. “As such, the agreement is designed to preserve the customer as BrokerLink’s and also prevents Commonwell from having any communications with the customer after termination where it seeks to retain the customer.”

BrokerLink told the court it informed The Commonwell’s policyholders about their coverage options within the 45-day timeline.

Also in the news: Why Ontario pedestrians without auto insurance will need access to optional benefits 

Therefore, it argued, The Commonwell was in breach of the brokerage’s contract with the insurer when it sent out its letter soliciting BrokerLink’s renewing customers in October 2025, and again to all of BrokerLink’s customers with Commonwell policies in November 2025.

The brokerage sought an injunction to stop The Commonwell from communicating to BrokerLink’s customers about their renewal options.

For example, on Oct. 20, 2025, The Commonwell sent out a notice to 700 customers related to the expiry of their policies. It stated in part: “Effective January 2026 your broker, BrokerLink, has chosen to stop selling Commonwell insurance products. This means that upon your policy renewal, they will be moving your policy to another insurance provider they are contracted with.

“The choice is yours, and we encourage you to consider your options, which include remaining with The Commonwell.”

Brokers and clients

BrokerLink maintains it owns the relationships with its clients, putting The Commonwell’s communications in breach of the brokerage agreement.

“BrokerLink argues that since Commonwell delivered the notices to the customers, it must have used BrokerLink’s proprietary customer information and/or proprietary information as to the expiry dates of the policies,” reads the court decision, released Jan. 2, 2026.

Commenting on the case, Joe D’Anunzio, CEO of BrokerLink told CU: “This isn’t just a case between BrokerLink and The Commonwell: It’s about defending a broker’s ownership of its book of business, customer list, and protecting the distribution model.

“I’m not sure any broker would place their customers with an insurer that would interfere with that relationship and direct our customers to a different broker or direct agent. I don’t know any broker who would go into that agreement.

“Brokers are licensed advisors. They give advice to customers on where the best coverage uniquely tailored to them should be placed. That’s not disputed. A manufacturer does not decide, because they are not licensed to give that advice.”

Insurance companies and clients

For its part, The Commonwell made four main arguments before the court.

First, it claimed a responsibility to inform clients about their options if they feel a brokerage’s communications to the clients are not clear or misleading.

“Commonwell points out the dangers of interpreting the [brokerage] agreement in the manner urged by BrokerLink because it would set up the situation where BrokerLink could have misleading communications with customers and there would be no way for it to correct this or to ensure that it complies with its regulatory responsibilities,” the court ruling states.

In particular, in court, The Commonwell referenced a letter from BrokerlLink to a client that, in the court’s view, arguably did not present the choice to stay with The Commonwell as a viable option.

“While there is one communication referenced by BrokerLink that does also include the phrase, ‘If you would like to stay with your current insurance provider, please call us to discuss your options,’ the court ruled, “at the end, it is also arguably misleading because the bulk of the communication still indicates that BrokerLink reviewed the customer’s requirements and had selected another insurer for it and that BrokerLink would be sending the new policy to the customer.”

Second, The Commonwell argued, as an insurer, it is legally bound to be “fair and transparent” to the consumer about what is happening with their policies.

Third, since policyholders of a mutual insurer hold ownership rights over the company, a mutual has a regulatory responsibility to communicate with the owners of the company.

Finally, The Commonwell said, it complied with Section 14 of the contract, which states: “The broker consents to the company, as a result of its relationship with the insureds, communicating directly from time to time with the insureds for the following purposes [including adjusting claims and annual statements]…provided it gives the broker 30 days advance notice of any such other direct communication.”

The court noted this communication between The Commonwell and Brokerlink was not written, as the contract required. Plus, Section 14.4 of the contract does not apply to communications about policy renewals.

Nevertheless, the court said this correspondence gave credence to The Commonwell’s argument that it complied with the required 30-day notice to BrokerLink in advance of sending out the Oct. 20 communication to its members, for example.

And since BrokerLink did not forbid or amend The Commonwell’s correspondence to its customers, the court found BrokerLink did not prove “irreparable harm,” which is the legal standard required for the court to issue an injunction.