.

Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers

The Customer Is Not Always Right: Considering the Customer’s Conduct When Defending Insurance Brokers

Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers – November 2023

November 1, 2023

by Estelle Kokales McGrath

Insurance brokers are usually sued when their customers find themselves without the necessary insurance to protect themselves from suit or damages. While brokers can face liability in certain scenarios, they have defenses that should not be ignored including investigating the actions or inactions of their customers. 

Pennsylvania courts have long explained that a customer has to act prudently to protect its property and business. “An insurance broker is liable for any loss stemming from his negligence ‘unless the customer is also guilty of failure to exercise care of a reasonably prudent businessman for the protection of his own property and business which contributes to the happening of such loss.’” Saracinaj v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 3:21-CV-793, 2022 WL 89841, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2022) (quoting Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Babayan, No. CIV. A. 03-1622, 2004 WL 1902516, at *20 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2004), aff’d, 430 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2005)). (Emphasis added). 

The courts have made clear that, "[a]lthough an insurance broker owes a duty of care to its customer, that duty is not unaffected by the conduct of the customer itself." (Emphasis added). Industrial Valley Bank and Trust Co. v. The Dilks Agency, et. al., 751 F.2d 637, 640 (3d Cir., 1985). The Dilks court explained: 

An insurance broker is under a duty to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent businessman in the brokerage field would exercise under similar circumstances and if the broker fails to exercise such care and if such care is the direct cause of loss to his customer, then he is liable for such loss unless the customer is also guilty of failure to exercise care of a reasonably prudent businessman for the protection of his own property and business which contributes to the happening of such loss.

Id. at 639 (citing Consol. Sun Ray, Inc. v. Lea, 401 F.2d 650, 656 (3d Cir. 1968)); see also Al's Cafe v. Sanders Ins. Agency, 820 A.2d at 750. (Emphasis added).

While undoubtedly the focus will be on what the broker failed to do, the tables should be turned to investigate the customer’s conduct. Here are ten questions to consider when defending a broker:
 
1.    Did the customer fail to request a particular policy or coverage?
2.    Did the customer fail to timely decide whether to purchase a policy?
3.    Did the customer fail to request a new policy upon expiration?
4.    Did the customer fail to pay a premium?
5.    Did the customer fail to take appropriate action after becoming aware that coverage was no longer in place?
6.    Did the customer fail to provide information required to secure coverage?
7.    Did the customer ignore communications from the broker or insurance company?
8.    Did the customer fail to read the policy?
9.    Did the customer fail to remedy issues that prevented coverage?
10.    Did the customer fail to provide truthful information that prevented coverage?

An insurance broker should carefully and fully investigate any errors and omissions claim, which would include a thorough review of its file, its management system, any electronically stored information relating to that file and any other documentation or communications it may have relating to the matter. Timely reporting of the claim to the broker’s errors and omissions carrier is also critical. Finally, the broker should seek legal counsel for further guidance on how to best defend the claim. 

Estelle McGrath is a shareholder in the Professional Liability Department in the Pittsburgh office of Marshall Dennehey. She represents insurance agents and brokers in the state and federal courts. She may be reached at ekmcgrath@mdwcg.com.
 

 

Legal Update for Insurance Agents & Brokers, November 2023 has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tgventura@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

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.