Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Court Declines to Hold Broker Accountable for Insured’s Failure to Report Known Claims in Application

By Margaret Karchmer on October 24, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

A Massachusetts federal court has held that, absent special circumstances, an insurance broker does not owe a fiduciary duty of care to its client and therefore is entitled to accept its clients’ representation that all known claims had been reported in its application and has no duty to investigate whether potential claims were not reported.  Biochemics, Inc. v. Axis Reins. Co., 2017 WL 4317384 (D. Mass. Sept. 28, 2017).

The insured pharmaceutical company and its founder were the targets of an SEC formal investigative order and subsequent enforcement action.  During the course of the matter, the pharmaceutical company, in consultation with its broker and insurance producer, switched its D&O insurance carriers.  The pharmaceutical company did not report the matter as either a claim or potential claim to the first carrier, nor did it disclose the matter on its application for insurance with the second carrier.  The second carrier denied coverage for the matter, and the insured pharmaceutical company filed suit against the carrier as well as the broker and insurance producer.  The court granted the second carrier’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the SEC investigation and enforcement action were not covered because the SEC formal investigative order was issued prior to its policy’s inception.

The pharmaceutical company then moved for summary judgment on their claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Massachusetts consumer protection laws against the broker and insurance producer, arguing that their handling of the company’s account resulted in the denial of coverage.  In denying the pharmaceutical company’s motion for summary judgment, the court held there were no special circumstances imposing a fiduciary duty of care on the broker or insurance producer.  Therefore, because the company was required to report all known claims to the second insurer in signing the policy proposal, the broker and insurance producer were entitled to rely on that representation and had no obligation to ferret out unreported claims or potential claims.

 

Photo of Margaret Karchmer Margaret Karchmer

Margaret represents insurers in connection with coverage issues and disputes arising under professional liability and general liability insurance policies. Margaret, a certified Legal Lean Sigma Institute (LLSI) White Belt, uses the LLSI process and project management tools to continually improve the value proposition…

Margaret represents insurers in connection with coverage issues and disputes arising under professional liability and general liability insurance policies. Margaret, a certified Legal Lean Sigma Institute (LLSI) White Belt, uses the LLSI process and project management tools to continually improve the value proposition the firm delivers to its clients.

Read more about Margaret KarchmerEmailMargaret's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Insurance
  • Blog:
    Wiley Executive Summary
  • Organization:
    Wiley Rein LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo