Does an insurance agent have a duty to the public at large in the event that the insurance agent acquires information suggesting that the client is unfit to drive?

I see no justification for a conclusion that an insurance agent stands free of any duty whatsoever to the public at large in the event that the agent, in the course of dealing with a client, acquires information suggesting that the client is unfit to drive. A bartender who knows that a customer will drive his car owes a duty to the public not to continue to serve drinks to the customer once the customer becomes obviously intoxicated. (Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 164--167, 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151; see also Bernhard v. Harrah's Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313, 324--325, 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 546 P.2d 719.) If a patient tells a psychiatrist that he intends to kill someone, the psychiatrist

Page 862