Duty to advise as to the adequacy of the business insurance coverage provided; Genesee Foods Servs, Inc v Meadowbrook, Inc; Harts v Farmers Ins Exch; Janovski v S J Ferrari Ins Agency, Inc (Unpub); Special relationship; Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter (CPCU)

The court concluded that because there was no special relationship between defendants and plaintiffs, they did not have a duty to advise plaintiffs as to the adequacy of their insurance coverage. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiffs argued that “because defendants were independent insurance agents, ‘their primary duty of loyalty rested with plaintiffs, who could depend on this duty of loyalty to ensure that defendants were acting in their best interests both in terms of finding an insurer that could provide them with the most comprehensive coverage and in ensuring that the insurance contract properly addressed their needs.’” They contended that “defendants breached that duty because they did not ‘inform' plaintiffs that the policy they purchased did not provide casualty coverage for” plaintiff-Cloverleaf’s personal property. The court noted that the “lead case on an insurance agent’s duty to advise an insured as to the adequacy of the coverage provided is” Harts. Plaintiffs argued that “defendants’ duty of loyalty is stated in Genesee Foods and that Harts only applies to captive insurance agents, not" independent agents. But the court has rejected similar arguments in several unpublished opinions. It found Janovski persuasive and, likewise, concluded that Harts applied here. Plaintiffs argued that a special relationship existed between them and defendants. While there was record evidence that Cloverleaf had a long history with defendants and that defendant-Hieronymus is a CPCU, the record did “not support a finding that defendants had ‘complete knowledge’ of the insurance plaintiffs needed. Rather, Hieronymus provided evidence as to what insurance was required by law and what insurance plaintiffs sought because their lease indicated that it was their responsibility, but that does not equate to a finding that defendants therefore had ‘complete knowledge’ of" their needs. The record also did not “allow for an inference that defendants promised to provide all coverage needed.” Rather, it appeared that they “agreed to try and procure specific coverage, but were unable to find an insurer that would cover the contents of the buildings.” Further, plaintiffs did not point “to any record evidence indicating that defendants misrepresented the nature or extent of the coverage offered.” Viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there were “no facts indicating that defendants misrepresented to plaintiffs the nature or extent of the coverage.” There also was no “evidence that an ambiguous request was made that required a clarification.”