.

Case Law Alerts

Court Reiterated Prevailing Standard in Pennsylvania for Establishing Existence of ‘Special Relationship’ Between Insurance Customer and Insurance Broker.

Mohanan, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, 2023 WL 8026106 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2023)

January 1, 2024

by Dana A. Gittleman

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss to strike references to a “special relationship” owed to the plaintiffs premised on the defendant’s purported “cultivat[ion of] a relationship of trust and confidence.” The court agreed with the defendant’s position that the relationship between an insurance broker and an insured is an arm’s length business relationship; a fiduciary duty does not arise simply because the insurance agent or broker possesses superior knowledge or skill as compared to a lack of sophistication of the insured (see Wisniski v. Brown & Brown Ins. Co., 906 A.2d 571, 577-78 (Pa. Super. 2006); Stern Family Real Estate Partnership v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22296 (W.D. Pa. March 27, 2007); Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 161 A.3d 811, 820 (Pa. 2017)).

The analysis of the existence of a special relationship is an important one with respect to the standard of care applied. If an insured can establish a special relationship—for example, as analyzed here, through overmastering influence and/or final decision-making power ceded to the insurance agent or broker—the insurance agent or broker is assumed to have undertaken additional, fiduciary duties. In other words, the existence of a special relationship elevates the duty owed from a duty to procure to a duty to advise or recommend. 

The Mohanan decision is a welcome addition to the existing precedent in Pennsylvania limiting the imposition of a fiduciary duty on an insurance agent or broker. Consistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Yenchi, supra, the bar remains high to establish a confidential or fiduciary duty between an insurance producer and an insurance customer.

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.