Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that an insured may maintain negligence and breach-of-contract claims against an insurance broker for failing to procure specifically requested coverage, even when the insured received the policy without reading or objecting to it. The failure to read the policy may support comparative negligence but does not categorically bar recovery where factual issues exist regarding the specific coverage requested and the broker’s failure to obtain it.
Holdings
- An insured may maintain negligence and breach-of-contract claims against an insurance broker when issues of fact exist as to whether the insured specifically requested particular coverage and whether the broker failed to procure that coverage.
- An insured's failure to read and understand the policy after receiving it, without lodging a complaint, does not constitute an absolute bar to recovery against the broker under the circumstances presented.
Questions Presented
- Whether an insured may maintain negligence and breach-of-contract claims against an insurance broker when factual issues exist regarding a specific request for coverage that the broker allegedly failed to procure.
- Whether the insured's receipt of the policy without reading it or complaining about its terms absolutely bars recovery against the broker.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (11)
- DRK, LLC v. Burlington Ins. Co., 74 A.D.3d 693 (1st Dep't 2010), leave denied, 16 N.Y.3d 702 (2011)(applied procedurally)
- Murphy v. Kuhn, 90 N.Y.2d 266, 270 (1997)(followed)
- Hoffend & Sons, Inc. v. Rose & Kiernan, Inc., 7 N.Y.3d 152, 155, 157-158 (2006)(followed and extended)
- Busker on Roof Ltd. Partnership Co. v. Warrington, 283 A.D.2d 376, 376-377 (1st Dep't 2001)(not followed)
- Rotanelli v. Madden, 172 A.D.2d 815, 817 (2d Dep't 1991), leave denied, 79 N.Y.2d 754 (1992)(not followed)
- Madhvani v. Sheehan, 234 A.D.2d 652, 654-655 (3d Dep't 1996)(not followed)
- Chase's Cigar Store v. Stam Agency, 281 A.D.2d 911, 912 (4th Dep't 2001)(not followed)
- Kyes v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 278 A.D.2d 736, 737-738 (3d Dep't 2000)(followed)
- Reilly v. Progressive Ins. Co., 288 A.D.2d 365, 366 (2d Dep't 2001)(followed)
- Baseball Off. of Commr. v. Marsh & McLennan, 295 A.D.2d 73, 82 (1st Dep't 2002)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…