Section 631.09 - Knowledge and acts of agents(1) IMPUTATION OF KNOWLEDGE. An insurer is deemed to know any fact material to the risk or which breaches a condition of the policy, if the agent who bound the insurer or issued the policy or transmitted the application to the insurer knew it at the time the agent acted, or if thereafter any of the insurer's agents with whom the policyholder is then dealing as agent of the insurer learns it in the course of the agent's dealing with the policyholder, and knows that it pertains to a policy written by the insurer.(2) ACTS OF AGENT. A failure by any policyholder or insured to perform an act required to perfect his or her rights under the policy, or failure to perform the act in the time and manner prescribed, does not affect the insurer's obligations under the policy if the failure was caused by an act, statement or representation or omission to perform a duty by an agent of the insurer who has apparent authority, whether or not the agent was within the actual scope of the agent's authority.(3) EFFECT OF NOTICE TO AGENT. Notice given by or on behalf of the policyholder or insured to any authorized agent of the insurer with particulars sufficient to identify the policy is notice to the insurer.(4) COLLUSION. Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the agent and the policyholder or insured acted in collusion to deceive or defraud the insurer, or if the policyholder or insured knew the agent was acting beyond the scope of the agent's authority.(5) GROUP POLICYHOLDER NOT AGENT. No person is an agent of an insurer merely because the person is a policyholder of a group insurance policy.(6) LIABILITY UNDER COMMON LAW. This section does not diminish any liability of the insurer that would exist under common law. Absent proof that an agent knew, or should have known, of financial problems of a reinsurer from whom the agent procured insurance, the agent is not liable when the reinsurer later becomes insolvent. Master Plumbers Mut. Liab. v. Cormany & Bird, 79 Wis. 2d 308, 255 N.W.2d 533 (1977). When an insured elected to have open heart surgery after an agent indicated that the insurer would probably pay the bills, that action was sufficient reliance to estop the insurer from denying coverage. Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 80 Wis. 2d 353, 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977).