Adams v Blodgett

Holding The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the client made a specific request for coverage and whether a special relationship existed that imposed a continuing duty on the broker. The court determined that the broker’s failure to procure the requested coverage and the client’s failure to read the policy raised credibility and comparative negligence issues for trial rather than warranting dismissal.

The court’s words

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

2026 NY Slip Op 04684, at the official text

Where a special relationship develops between the broker and client, . . . the broker may be liable, even in the absence of a specific request, for failing to advise or direct the client to obtain additional coverage

2026 NY Slip Op 04684, at the official text

The failure to read the policy, at most, may give rise to a defense of comparative negligence but should not bar, altogether, an action against a broker

2026 NY Slip Op 04684, at the official text

issues of fact exist as to whether [Blodgett] specifically requested coverage [in his individual capacity as owner of the property] in case of accidental injury

2026 NY Slip Op 04684, at the official text