The insurance agent's motion for summary judgment was denied where issues of fact existed regarding his failure to obtain specifically requested coverage. Am. Building Supply Corp. v. Petrocelli Group, Inc., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3476 (N.Y. Nov. 19, 2012).

   The insured was a tenant of a building from which it sold and furnished building materials to general contractors. In discussions with its insurance broker, the insured specifically requested coverage for its employees in case of injury. The agent was also informed that only employees were in the building and not customers. The policy was issued by Burlington, but  included a cross liability exclusion stating that the insurance did not apply to bodily injury to an employee of the insured.

   One of the insured's employees was injured in the building while working. Burlington denied coverage based upon the cross-liability exclusion.

   The insured sued the broker for negligence and breach of contract for failure to procure adequate coverage. The trial court denied the broker's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, reasoning that the insured's failure to read and understand the policy precluded recovery in this action.

   The New York Court of Appeals reversed. Insurance agents had a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients or inform the client of their inability to do so. To state a case for negligence or breach of contract against an insurance broker, a plaintiff had to establish that a specific request was made to the broker for the coverage that was not provided in the policy. The court concluded that there were issues of fact as to whether the insured specifically requested coverage for its employees in case of accidental injury and the broker, being aware of such request, failed to procure the requested coverage. Further, since only employees entered the building, the coverage which was obtained, excluding coverage for injuries to employees, did not make sense.

   Finally, the fact that the insured did not complain about the lack of appropriate coverage upon receipt of the policy did not bar the insured's claim. An insured was entitled to look to the expertise of its broker with respect to insurance matters. The insured's failure to read and understand the policy was not an absolute bar to recovery under the circumstances of this case.