THOMAS MURPHY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. DONALD C. KUHN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
90 N.Y.2d 266, 682 N.E.2d 972, 660 N.Y.S.2d 371 (1997).
June 27, 1997
4 No. 138 (1997 NY Int. 121)
Decided June 27, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Paul K. Lange, for appellants.
Maurice L. Sykes, for respondents.
BELLACOSA, J.:
The question for this case is whether an insurance agent should be
liable to a former customer for tortious misrepresentation and breach
of implied contract. The alleged wrongdoing is a failure of the
defendant insurance agent to advise plaintiff Thomas Murphy as to
possible additional insurance coverage needs. The theory of the
lawsuit and the asserted duty is a special relationship and special
level of advisory responsibility.
The Appellate Division affirmed an order of Supreme Court, which
granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
complaint. Plaintiffs appeal pursuant to leave granted by this Court.
We affirm the order of the Appellate Division because no special
relationship was established on this record.
Plaintiffs Thomas Murphy and Webster Golf Course, Inc. sued defendants
Donald C. Kuhn, Kuhn & Pedulla Agency, Inc., and its predecessor Roman
A. Kuhn Agency, alleging professional negligence and breach of implied
contract. This dispute originates in a 1991 automobile accident in
Florida involving Murphy's son. One person died and several others
suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident. At that time,
the title to the son's car was in his father's name and the personal
insurance was placed under the commercial automobile policy covering
Murphy's business, Webster Golf Course, Inc. After exhausting the
$500,000 policy limit to settle the car accident claims, Thomas Murphy
assertedly paid an additional $194,429.50 plus $7,500 in attorneys'
fees. Then, he sued these defendants to recover the additional sums he
had to pay personally.
Defendants began providing the property, casualty and liability
insurance to plaintiffs in 1973 in connection with their golf
SNIPPETS:
THOMAS MURPHY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. DONALD C. KUHN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The question for this case is whether an insurance agent should be liable to a former
The alleged wrongdoing is a failure of the defendant insurance agent to advise plaintiff
The theory of the lawsuit and the asserted duty is a special relationship and special level
The Appellate Division affirmed an order of Supreme Court, which granted defendants' motion
Plaintiffs appeal pursuant to leave granted by this Court.
We affirm the order of the Appellate Division because no special relationship was established
Plaintiffs Thomas Murphy and Webster Golf Course, Inc. sued defendants Donald C. Kuhn, Kuhn &
One person died and several others suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident.
At that time, the title to the son's car was in his father's name and the personal insurance
Beginning in 1977, defendant Donald Kuhn also handled all of Murphy's personal insurance
From 1984 until the time of the accident, the liability limits on the commercial policy were
Therefore, acknowledging that on this record plaintiffs never specifically requested
Plaintiffs propose that insurance agents can assume or acquire legal duties not existing at
Specifically, plaintiffs contend that a special relationship developed from a long,
Generally, the law is reasonably settled on initial principles that insurance agents have a
Co., 208 AD2d 1132, 1133; Hjemdahl-Monsen v Faulkner, 204 AD2d 516, 517; Rogers v Urbanke,
Recently, however, this Court recognized a special relationship in a commercial controversy,
Kimmell cautions, however, that "liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed
As a matter of law, this record does not rise to the high level required to recognize the
No doubt, therefore, public policy considerations will have to be weighed on the question of
|
