COURT: “IF [IT] WANTED AN INSURANCE CONSULTANT, IT COULD HAVE RETAINED ONE”
Just how special is that relationship?
“I was only following orders” – while a weak statement in most cases, this is often supported by the courts for insurance brokers. The courts state the duty of the insurance broker is to do what the customer asks, nothing more. In a recent case[1], a manufacturer (C.S. Osborne & Co., Inc.) had $1,000,000 in flood insurance. Super Storm Sandy came, and the $1,000,000 was inadequate.
Osborne pursued a suit against their insurance broker – indicating that the broker should have provided quotes for higher limits, and the courts concluded: an insurance broker was “not an insurance consultant, and that if Osborne had wanted an insurance consultant, it could have retained one.” The court brings it back to compensation “[the broker’s ] proposal clearly stated it would receive payment from the insurer [and] did nothing to suggest it worked for anyone else.”
Your broker may be special to you, a good friend and skilled at finding you coverage, but, if the coverage isn’t there, it’s likely you will hear about the “order taker” defense. Separating advice from sales can prevent this.
[1] C.S. Osborne & Co., Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., No. A-2182-15T4 (N.J. App.Div. May 1, 2017)
Abby Krueger
Jul 03, 2017
