You are here: / / “Special Relationship” Between Insured and Broker Allowed Insured to Rel...

“Special Relationship” Between Insured and Broker Allowed Insured to Rely on Broker’s Duty to Advise

The Second Department affirmed the motion court in finding that a question of fact had been raised about whether there was a “special relationship” between the insured and the insurance broker such that the insured could rely on the broker’s expertise and duty to advise:

“While it is certainly better practice for an insured to read its policy, an insured should have the right to look to the expertise of its broker with respect to insurance matters’… . Additionally, where the insured relied on the expertise of the agent, or there was a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on, the agent could be found to have a duty to advise because of a special relationship with the insured … .  South Bay Cardiovascular Assoc, PC v SCS Agency, Inc, 2013 Slip Op 02564, 2012-01964, 2012-05203, Index No 37328/07, 2nd Dept 4-17-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL RECORDS; DEFENDANT PODIATRIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT ATTACHED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).
Village Not Liable for Failure to Place a Crossing Guard at a Particular Intersection—Placement of Crossing Guards Is a “Discretionary,” Not “Ministerial,” Government Action—No Liability Absent Special Relationship to Plaintiff
A CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a) (4) BECAUSE IT SEEKS THE SAME RELIEF AS A PENDING ACTION INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE (1) THE STAIRS DOWN WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A HANDRAIL (2) THE STAIRS WERE ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED (3) OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD STATUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CARE WAS NOT WARRANTED, NO SHOWING OF AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE CHILD’S LIFE OR HEALTH (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY (AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND THE FAILURE TO APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, GAVE RISE TO THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Proof Requirements for “Breach of Employment Contract” and “Labor Law... In a Prohibition Proceeding Brought Under Article 78, Trial Judge’s Mistrial...