You are here: / / In Absence of a “Special Relationship” Insurer Not Liable for...

In Absence of a “Special Relationship” Insurer Not Liable for Agent’s Negligent Misrepresentation

The Fourth Department determined the insurance carrier was entitled to summary judgment because it did not have a “special relationship” with the insured.  Plaintiff’s insurance had been cancelled for lack of payment.  After a loss, the plaintiff sued the insurer alleged that he had relied on the agent’s representation that his insurance premium had been paid.  Absent a “special relationship” suit can not be premised on such reliance:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the gravamen of which is a claim for negligent misrepresentation. An essential element of such a claim is the “duty to use reasonable care to impart correct information due to a special relationship between the parties” … . A special relationship may arise from “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” … . According to plaintiff, he had a special relationship with defendant based on a course of dealing. We conclude that defendant met its burden on the motion, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of a special relationship … . The interactions between plaintiff and defendant on which plaintiff relies ” would [not] have put [an] objectively reasonable insurance agent[] on notice that [his or her advice] was being sought and specially relied on’ ” … , such that a special relationship was formed based on a course of conduct. Defendant therefore cannot be held liable for negligent misrepresentation based on its agent’s response to an inquiry from plaintiff concerning whether his policy premium had been paid. In view of our determination, we do not consider defendant’s remaining contentions. Majtan v Urbanke Assoc Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04631, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

You might also like
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH FATHER VOLUNTARILY LEFT A BETTER PAYING JOB IN VIRGINIA, HE DID SO TO BE NEARER TO HIS SON WHO HAD MOVED WITH MOTHER TO NEW YORK FROM VIRGINIA (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Extraordinary Circumstances Warranted Award of Custody to Non-Parent
THE COURT’S PRIOR ORDER STATED FATHER’S COMPLIANCE FOR SIX MONTHS WOULD CONSTITUTE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND FATHER DEMONSTRATED SUCH COMPLIANCE; IN ADDITION MOTHER’S RELOCATION TO ARIZONA WITHOUT PERMISSION CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES; IN-PERSON VISITATION ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENTS DEFENDANT MADE TO HIS INSURANCE CARRIER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DOG OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHE HAD HEARD THAT ONE OF HER DOGS NIPPED A BOY IN A PRIOR INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS OF THE INCIDENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Fact that Medical Guidelines May Be Available to the Public Does Not Warrant Denial of Discovery of Such Documents from the Defendant
Motion to Quash Subpoena for Billing Records Re: the Insurance Company’s Examining Physician Properly Denied

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

Mother Not Adequately Apprised of Her Right to Counsel—New Hearing Or... In a Partition Action, Tenant in Common Not Liable to Other Tenants in Common...