You are here: / / No Duty Owed by Agent to Client—Client Never Requested Type of Insurance...

No Duty Owed by Agent to Client—Client Never Requested Type of Insurance At Issue

The Second Department determined an insurance agent was not obligated to indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying action because the client never requested the specific (automobile) coverage at issue. The court explained the nature of a duty owed by an agent to the agent’s client:

“An insurance agent or broker has a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for a client within a reasonable amount of time or to inform the client of the inability to do so” … . This “duty is defined by the nature of the client’s request” … . “Absent a specific request for coverage not already in a client’s policy or the existence of a special relationship with the client, an insurance agent or broker has no continuing duty to advise, guide, or direct a client to obtain additional coverage” … . Here, Ginsberg, a Nationwide insurance agent who sold the plaintiff … the subject policies of insurance, established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs did not specifically request automobile coverage, either in connection with their initial 2003 insurance applications, or in connection with subsequent renewal applications. Maxwell Plumb Mech Corp v Nationwide Prop & Cas Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02412, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

You might also like
​THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) RELIED SOLELY ON PRIOR NEGLECT FINDINGS FROM 2007 AND 2009 TO PROVE DERIVATIVE NEGLECT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE UNDERLYING MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NECESSARILY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED (NOT THE CASE HERE).
THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
No Basis for Liability of Snow-Removal Contractor Re: Slip and Fall
DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (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

Children’s Out-Of-Court Statements May Corroborate One Another Plaintiff Did Not Demonstrate Standing—No Proof Underlying Debt Was Transferred...