The broker was not negligent when it proposed additional coverage that was rejected by the insured. Cromer v. Rosenzweig Ins. Agency Inc., 2017 N.Y. App Div. LEXIS 8969 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 21, 2017).

    Plaintiff was injured while employed as a painter at property owned by Allen Skriloff. Coverage was denied because injuries to employees, contractors and employees of contractors were excluded. Plainitff sued Skriloff and obtained a jury verdict of $6.1 million. Skirloff assigned to plaintiff all rights and claims held against the insurer and insurance brokers.

    Plaintiff then sued the broker, Rosenzweig Insurance Agency Inc., alleging negligence, breach of contract and fraud/material misrepresentation. Rosenzweig moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion. 

    The appellate division affirmed. An insurance broker had a common-law duty to provide requested coverage within a reasonable time and could be held liable for negligence or breach of contract when a client established that a specific request was made for coverage that was not provided.

    Here, Rosenzweig informed Skriloff that the policy being issued did not cover injuries to construction workers, but such coverage was available for an additional $5,000. Skriloff never requested that Rosenzweig obtain a policy that covered injuries to construction workers. At his deposition, Skriloff testified that he was aware that the policy did not provide coverage for injuries to construction workers and explained that he did not procure the more expensive policy because he mistakenly believed that his contractor already had liability coverage for his employees.