You are here: / / ALTHOUGH NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN BROKER AND PLAINTIFF,...

ALTHOUGH NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN BROKER AND PLAINTIFF, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR FLOOD INSURANCE (WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE POLICY) SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Fourth Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to the insurance broker (First Niagara) because no special relationship existed with plaintiff. Plaintiff specifically asked defendant whether plaintiff had flood insurance and further stated plaintiff wanted flood insurance. Defendant never responded. After flood damage occurred plaintiff learned the policy did not include flood insurance. Although no special relationship existed, plaintiff’s cause of action based upon the specific request for flood insurance survived summary judgment:

“As a general principle, insurance brokers have a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so” … . “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” … . “[A] special relationship may arise where (1) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums . . . (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent . . . ; or (3) there is 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’ “… .

Here, First Niagara met its initial burden of establishing that no special relationship existed, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact  … . Specifically, First Niagara submitted evidence that it received no compensation from plaintiff over and above the commissions it received for the insurance policies it had procured, that plaintiff did not use First Niagara as its exclusive agent, and that plaintiff retained final decision-making authority over what coverage to obtain … . Thus, even accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, we conclude that “the record in the instant case presents only the standard consumer-agent insurance placement relationship” … .

We further conclude, however, that First Niagara failed to tender “sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” relating to plaintiff’s specific request for flood insurance coverage … . … [T]here are triable issues of fact concerning whether plaintiff made a specific request for flood insurance coverage prior to the flood event … . Petri Baking Prods., Inc. v Hatch Leonard Naples, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05338, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

You might also like
BECAUSE OF UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTORY LANGUAGE, DEFENDANT’S MICHIGAN CONVICTION WAS DEEMED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE” EVEN THOUGH THE SAME CONDUCT IN NEW YORK WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE;” STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS HAD BEEN FILED; EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT ADDED A CAUSE OF ACTION REQUIRING FURTHER DISCOVERY, THE MOTION WAS GRANTED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO REOPEN THE PROOF AFTER A VIDEO PLAYED DURING SUMMATION DEMONSTRATED THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAD NOT TESTIFIED TRUTHFULLY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO VIEW THE ENTIRE VIDEO PRIOR TO TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPPRESSION OF THE WEAPON WAS PROPERLY DENIED, BUT DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ADMITTING POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE IS RARELY APPLIED TO UPHOLD A GUILTY PLEA WHERE SUPPRSSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED THE PLEA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY SUPPRESSION OF THE STATEMENT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
BEFORE GRANTING THE AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DID NOT REFER THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT).
Statements Constituted Opinion, Not Facts/Defamation Complaint Against Syracuse Basketball Coach Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action
City Code and Charter Not Unconstitutionally Applied Re: Searches Related to Certificates of Occupancy

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO... INSURER’S DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS NOT SUFFICIENT...