• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Sign Up
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise With Us
    • Monthly Banner Ad
    • Sponsor An Email
    • Post A Job
    • Product Launch

Agency Checklists

Massachusetts-inspired Insurance News & More

  • JOBS
  • Checklists
    • Starting Your Own Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Purchasing An Insurance Agency in Massachusetts
    • Why, When, & How: Times When A Massachusetts Insurance Agent Should Use A Business Broker
    • Deciding Whether or Not to Outsource Your Customer Service?
    • Employment Contracts & The Non-Compete Clause In Massachusetts
    • Hiring An Insurance Producer In Massachusetts
    • Insurance Agent to Agency Loans In Massachusetts
    • Moving Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • How Premium Financing Can Work For Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Remuneration Audit Checklist
    • Selling Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Applying For An Agency Loan
    • When The Auditor Calls
  • Data
  • Events
  • InsurShop
    • Insurance Quiz Time
    • Insurance Books
      • Innovation Titles
      • Improvement
      • Leadership
      • Licensing
      • Marketing
      • Sales
    • Insurance Films
    • Insurance Glossary
  • Partner News
You are here: Home / Insurance News | Massachusetts / Insurers | News / Mass. Appeals Court Finds Affinity Agency Had No Duty to Insured to Ensure Coverage Adequate

Mass. Appeals Court Finds Affinity Agency Had No Duty to Insured to Ensure Coverage Adequate

August 6, 2018 by Owen Gallagher

On August 2, 2018, the Appeals Court again affirmed the rule that an insurance agency has no legal liability for failing to advise an insured as to the completeness or adequacy of the insured’s insurance coverage absent a “special relationship.”

In Kenneth Perreault v. AIS Affinity Insurance Agency of New England, Inc, (“Affinity”) the holder of an assignment of rights from a negligent attorney sued the attorney’s malpractice carrier and that insurer’s program manager because of an alleged failure of the agent to advise the insured attorney about retroactive dates and extended reporting under a claims made policy.

A missed statute of limitations gives rise to a malpractice claim

In September 2008, the Plaintiff, Mr. Perreault, retained Attorney Simon Mann to represent him in a wrongful death action. Mr. Perreault wanted Attorney Mann to advise him regarding legal action against tobacco companies for the death of his wife due to cancer. Mr. Perreault’s wife had died in March 2006.

In May 2009, Attorney Mann obtained a medical opinion that Mr. Perreault’s case had a likelihood of success based upon the evidence. However, the statute of limitations on a wrongful death action in Massachusetts is three years and, thus, when Attorney Mann obtained the favorable opinion the statute had already tolled.

Attorney Mann did not give Mr. Perreault the medical report, and in July 2009, sent a letter to Mr. Perreault stating that there was no likelihood of success on the wrongful death claim and terminated his representation.

Mr. Perreault consulted another attorney who requested the file from Attorney Mann. Based on the medical report, the successor attorney determined Attorney Mann had committed legal malpractice.

Three law firms formed and dissolved in three years leads to lawsuit over insurance policies

Attorney Mann passed the bar in 2006 and took a job with a debt collection law firm, Arnowitz & Goldberg. In August 2007, Attorney Mann, and the firm’s two partners formed Arnowitz, Goldberg, & Mann LLC. Attorney Mann became a partner in the new firm.

Following the formation of the new firm in August 2007, Attorney Mann, as a managing member, took steps to secure a professional malpractice liability policy for the firm. He applied for a lawyer’s liability policy protecting the firm and its partners from malpractice claims. Affinity, part of AON and a program manager for Liberty, issued the policy.

The policy issued to the new firm covered liability for “claims made and reported.” A claim otherwise within the policy insuring agreement and not excluded by the conditions of the policy had to arise from malpractice after any retroactive date specified in the policy or during the policy period. Additionally, for coverage to apply, any claim received during the policy period had to be reported to Liberty within that same policy period. The insured also had the right to purchase an extended reporting period upon the expiration of the policy for a one-year, two-year, three-year, five-year, or unlimited term.

In December 2009, Attorney Mann left the firm and opened the Law Office of Simon Mann. Attorney Mann requested Affinity to cancel the Arnowitz, Goldberg, and Mann firm’s malpractice policy. Affinity responded reminding Attorney Mann to “Please read (all attorneys) the provision for the extended reporting period endorsement.” Attorney Mann reiterated his request to cancel the policy without requesting an extended reporting endorsement.

In January 2010, Attorney Mann applied to Affinity for a malpractice policy for his new firm, the Law Office of Simon Mann. Because Attorney Mann’s new firm did not qualify as a continuation of the predecessor dissolved firm, Arnowitz, Goldberg, & Attorney Mann, Affinity did not issue the new policy with the dissolved firm’s 2007 retroactive date for claims. Instead, Attorney Mann’s new firm’s policy had a January 4, 2010 inception date and retroactive date.

While Attorney Mann was in the process of canceling the Arnowitz, Goldberg, & Attorney Mann firm’s policy and obtaining a malpractice policy for his new firm, Attorneys Arnowitz and Goldberg renewed their policy without Attorney Mann’s involvement. Following Attorney Mann opening his new firm in January 2010, Liberty issued a Specified Attorneys Exclusion endorsement at the request of Attorneys Arnowitz and Goldberg. This endorsement eliminated coverage for Attorney Mann’s prior acts as their associate. No one advised Attorney Mann about the issuance of the endorsement removing him from coverage.

Mr. Perreault sues Attorneys Mann, Arnowitz, and Goldberg for malpractice

A little over two months later, in March 2010, Mr. Perreault sued Attorney Mann and his former partners, Attorneys Arnowitz and Goldberg for malpractice. Attorney Mann attended the suit to Liberty. Liberty denied liability because Attorney Mann’s new policy’s retroactive date was January 4, 2010, and the alleged malpractice occurred in 2008 before this policy had taken effect.

Attorney Mann’s’ malpractice carrier, Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (“Liberty”) provided Attorney Mann a defense under a reservation of rights. However, Attorney Mann engaged his own personal counsel who quickly negotiated a settlement with Mr. Perreault. The settlement consisted of an agreed judgment of $1,550,000 against Attorney Mann of which she would only be responsible for $50,000, and an assignment of any rights Attorney Mann had against Liberty and Affinity under three malpractice policies placed by Affinity with Liberty.

Suit against Affinity for its alleged errors and omissions

After obtaining the consent judgment and assignment of rights from Attorney Mann, Mr. Perreault made a settlement demand against Liberty and Affinity for $1 million. After Liberty and Affinity rejected his settlement demand, Mr. Perreault, as Attorney Mann’s assignee, filed suit in the Superior Court for breach of contract, negligence, and a violation of G.L. c. 93A against Affinity and Liberty. Subsequently, Liberty and Mr. Perreault agreed to a dismissal of Liberty and the lawsuit proceeded against Affinity.

Mr. Perreault’s claims against Affinity were that that Affinity had not:

(1) procured for Attorney Mann a policy for his new firm that provided coverage for his actions before the creation of the new firm;

(2) told Attorney Mann that he needed to get optional extended reporting coverage for a policy that he voluntarily canceled; and

(3) told Attorney Mann that a firm, which no longer employed him, excluded him from coverage under its policy.

The Superior Court entered summary judgment against Mr. Perrault and in favor of Affinity. Mr. Perrault appealed to the Appeals Court claiming the Superior Court had committed a legal error in granting summary judgment as there were material facts to be tried to a jury.

Appeals Court restates strict standard for insurance agency liability

Mr. Perrault on his appeal acknowledged there was, under Massachusetts law, “no general duty of an insurance agent to ensure that the insurance policies. .. provide coverage that is adequate for the needs of the insured.”

However, the court agreed that Massachusetts law also provided an insurance agent may acquire a greater duty of investigation, advice, and assistance to an insured because of “special circumstances.” A plaintiff showing “special circumstances of assertion, representation and reliance” may establish that an insurance agency had a duty of due care.

The court listed the factors creating special circumstances as including:

(1) a prolonged business relationship;

(2) the complexity and comprehensiveness of the customer’s coverages;

(3) the frequency of contact between a customer and agent to attend to the customer’s insurance needs; and,

(4) the extent to which a customer relies on the advice of the agent because of the complexity of the policies.

The court also noted that enhanced duties could arise “when the agent holds himself out as an insurance specialist, consultant or counselor and is receiving compensation for consultation and advice apart from premiums paid by the insured.”

Appeals Court finds none of the factors of a special relationship between Attorney Mann and Affinity existed

After stating the standards, the Appeals Court agreed with the Superior Court judge that none of the standards required to find that a special relationship existed between the insured and the insurance agency existed.

Rather, the Court stated that in viewing the undisputed facts in a manner most favorable to Mr. Perrault, “…no rational finder of fact could conclude that special circumstances existed such that [Affinity] owed [Attorney] Attorney Mann a duty of care.”

The Court also noted:

  • Attorney Mann did not have a prolonged business relationship with Affinity;
  • He had no involvement in acquiring or purchasing the Arnowitz and Goldberg pre-2007 professional liability policy;
  • He did not communicate personally with Affinity until 2007 when he sought professional liability coverage for the newly-formed Arnowitz, Goldberg, and Attorney Mann firm; and
  • His next communication was not until December 2009, to place coverage for his new firm, the law offices of Simon Mann.

In finding against Mr. Perreault, the court contrasted Attorney Mann’s relationship with Affinity that spanned only three years and two policies with an appellate decision finding a special relationship because there was a twenty-eight-year relationship between the insured and the agent involving seven different policies.

The court concluded finding that summary judgment had properly entered against Mr. Perrault on his claims under M.G.L. c. 93A for unfair and deceptive business practices, and for his breach-of-contract claim.

The court found the 93A claim failed because there was no special relationship between Attorney Mann and Affinity and that the contract claim failed because as a matter of law there was no contract based upon the undisputed facts.

Twenty days to apply for further appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court

The Massachusetts Appeals Court is an intermediate appellate court. The ultimate judicial authority resides with the Supreme Judicial Court. Parties dissatisfied with an Appeal Court’s decision may apply for further appellate review. However, the allowance of any further appeal is discretionary with the Supreme Judicial Court.

Under the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mr. Perrault will have until August 22, 2018, to apply for further appellate review.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Insurers | News, MA Insurance Law | Insurance Coverage Cases Tagged With: Affinity Insurance Agency, cases involving insurance agents in Massachusetts, ma insurance news, mass insurance news, Mass. Insurance Lawsuits, Professional Malpractice Liability Policy for Lawyers

Insurance Jobs in Massachusetts

About Owen Gallagher

Owen Gallagher is an experienced insurance litigator as well as a certified mediator and arbitrator who specializes in insurance industry disputes. His interest and affinity for insurance began at a young age working the counter at his father’s assigned risk agency in Roxbury. Over the course of his career, Owen has argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and has helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.  Owen can be reached here.

Primary Sidebar

-View Latest Career Opportunities Here-

Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News

Latest Agency Sales

The Philbin Insurance Group

The Philbin Insurance Group Purchases The Douglas Insurance Agency

World Insurance Associates Acquires The R.S. Gilmore Insurance Agency

DealerPolicy | Agency Checklists

DealerPolicy Insurance Acquires Granite State Independent Insurance

Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News

Arthur J. Gallagher Acquires North Star Marine Insurance

More Agency Sales

2020 NAIC Market Share Reports

NAIC 2020 Market Share Reports

Comments & Updates

  • Tony Lucacio on Associate General Counsel For Goosehead Insurance Terminated After Participating In January 6th Events In Washington, D.C.
  • Annie on Vermont Mutual Distributes $1,000,000 to COVID-19 Relief Efforts
  • Andrew J. Carpentier on The CAR Year In Review: Highlights From The 2020 Annual Report
  • Frank Lombard CPCU ARM on Time To Act As A Trusted Advisor About Earthquake Insurance?
  • Mike Ryan on InsurOp-Ed: Biden Tax Plan’s Impact on Insurance Agencies

AC In Your Inbox

Massachusetts Law Updates

Raynham Agent’s Non-Compete Escape Clause Included In Agency Sale Still Valid After Subsequent Stock Sale

A case deciding whether a non-compete clause included by the former owner of Eagle Insurance in his sale to People’s United Insurance, is still valid after that agency’s subsequent sale to AssuredPartners.

Boston Red Sox And MLB Aim Legal Beanball At Insurers With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit

Boston Red Sox and MLB Aim Legal Beanball At Insurers With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit

30 Major League Baseball teams have filed suit against their 3 insurers seeking $1.6 billion in Business Interruption losses from the COVID-19 shutdowns.

Should Insurance Agents Help Advocate Claims?

Court Rules An Obscure Statute Cured Contract Breach For A Three-Year Delay In Undisputed Claim Payment

A discussion of a recent Appellate Division of the District Court ruling a little-used statute can protect an insurance entity from a breach of contract for the payment of money.

MA Appeals Court Denies Ballet Master’s Claim Insurers Must Defend A Ballerina’s Sexual Abuse Suit

MA Appeals Court Denies Ballet Master’s Claim Insurers Must Defend A Ballerina’s Sexual Abuse Suit

After receiving the claimant and insurers’ briefs, the Appeals Court issued an unusual order and ordered supplemental briefing on two issues that neither insurer had raised or argued.

More Mass. Law Updates

CAR News

The CAR Year In Review: Highlights From The 2020 Annual Report

Last Look 2020: The Private Passenger Auto Insurance Marketplace in Massachusetts

Last Look 2020: The Commercial Auto Insurance Market Share in Massachusetts

CAR Begins The RFP Process For Commercial Servicing Carriers And Possible Commercial Pool Changes

View More CAR News

DOI News

Massachusetts Moves Up In 2020 Insurance Regulation Report Card

Mass. Division of Insurance Issues Four COVID-19-Related Bulletins Before 2021

Massachusetts Stays The Course As The 12th Largest Insurance Marketplace

DOI Announces Hearings For Two Separate Insurance Company Acquisitions of Control

View More DOI News

Insurance Fraud

Peabody Contractor Indicted For Insurance Fraud And Payroll Tax Evasion On $2.5 Million Of Under-The-Table Wages

Massachusetts Shares in $39.5 Million Multistate Settlement Agreement Over Insurance Company Data Breach

Arthur J. Gallagher Suffers Ransomware Attack

MA Attorney General Sues Keches Law Firm For Referring Injured Workers On Comp To A Mail-Order Pharmacy For Kickbacks

More Insurance Fraud News

Footer

Agency Checklists

About us
Contact us

14 Summer Street
Suite 102
Malden, MA 02148
617-598-3800
info@agencychecklists.com

Advertise on Agency Checklists

We offer a variety of ways to get help promote your company or product.

Announcements
Email Sponsorships
Partnerships
Custom Collaborations

*Affiliate Disclosure

Please note that any of Agency Checklists’ articles might contain one or more affiliate links. This means that any subsequent purchase resulting from these links may result in a commission for us, but at no additional cost to you. For example, as an Amazon Associate, Agency Checklists earns a commission from all qualifying purchases. By working with affiliates we can continue to keep Agency Checklists subscription free. Thank you for your support.

SEARCH OUR SITE

Explore Our Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Agency Checklists · All rights reserved.