When what you are promoting or home burns down and you discover out, too late, that your property insurance coverage coverage was not renewed, you don’t simply lose what you are promoting or residence. You lose religion within the system that was supposed to guard it. That’s what occurred to Lee and Keleen Deer, who believed they had been insured when a fireplace destroyed their Connecticut residence. Their dealer, Kevin Trahan, had acquired discover from the insurer that repairs had been required to take care of protection, however by no means handed it alongside or had a dialogue with them in regards to the renewal.
The Deers argued that after almost twenty years of working with their insurance coverage agent, they’d a “particular relationship” that imposed an obligation on him to warn them that their coverage wouldn’t renew. The Connecticut Supreme Courtroom, nonetheless, didn’t see it that approach. In Deer v. Nationwide Common Insurance coverage Firm, 1 the courtroom not too long ago reaffirmed a strict, conventional rule that after a dealer procures the coverage, his authorized responsibility ends until there’s clear proof of an ongoing settlement to take care of or renew protection or a particular relationship between the events that might help such an obligation.
I’ve written about this concern earlier than in Insurance coverage Agent Duties Depend upon Particular Relationships, and Insurance coverage Agent Negligence Instances Are Hardly ever Simple to Show. The stress between these circumstances, which frequently view insurance coverage brokers as mere “order takers” versus “professionals,” and the realities of how policyholders depend on their brokers, has by no means been extra obvious.
What Occurred
The Deers had an extended historical past with their agent, Trahan, who for years positioned their householders protection with Allstate. When Allstate exited Connecticut’s householders market, Trahan positioned their new coverage with Century-Nationwide. Quickly after, the insurer’s inspector discovered lacking siding and warned, by an e mail to Trahan, that repairs had been required “as a situation of continued protection.”
Trahan by no means handed that data alongside. Months later, the insurer despatched a licensed letter of nonrenewal to the Deers’ residence, however it went unclaimed. The coverage lapsed, the home burned down, and the insurer denied protection.
The Deers sued, arguing their agent had an obligation to warn them of the pending nonrenewal due to their lengthy and trusting relationship.
The Courtroom’s Majority: No Particular Relationship, No Responsibility
The Connecticut Supreme Courtroom dominated 4 to 2 in opposition to the Deers. Writing for almost all, Justice D’Auria reiterated that below long-standing Connecticut regulation, a dealer’s company relationship ends as soon as the coverage is procured. Except the dealer expressly agrees to deal with renewals or gives assurances of continuous protection, there isn’t any authorized responsibility to inform purchasers about nonrenewal.
The courtroom emphasised that the insurer, not the dealer, has the statutory responsibility to ship non-renewal notices. Considerably, it discovered {that a} lengthy relationship or “behavior of dealing” by itself doesn’t create a particular responsibility. There was additionally no proof of communication between the Deers and Trahan through the coverage 12 months.
In brief, the courtroom utilized the standard “no persevering with responsibility” rule no matter how unfair that consequence may really feel to the policyholder.
The bulk even acknowledged its sympathy for the Deers’ loss however concluded that the regulation should “draw a line” on legal responsibility. Because the opinion put it, “Each damage has rippling penalties. The issue for the regulation is to restrict the authorized penalties of wrongs to a controllable diploma.”
The Dissent: Time to Modernize the Regulation
Justice McDonald, joined by Justice Ecker, noticed it otherwise and forcefully. The dissent acknowledged that the rule the bulk clings to is greater than a century outdated, courting again to Cheshire Brass Co. v. Wilson in 1913. 2 McDonald argued that in at present’s world, the place policyholders depend upon brokers as professionals somewhat than mere salespeople, an agent’s responsibility mustn’t finish the second a coverage is issued.
He wrote that Trahan’s information of the inspection outcomes and pending nonrenewal created an obligation to speak that data to his purchasers. The dissent criticized the bulk’s bright-line cutoff as “antiquated” and “out of step with fashionable insurance coverage observe.” Quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ well-known line from The Path of the Regulation, McDonald reminded the courtroom: “It’s revolting to don’t have any higher cause for a rule of regulation than that so it was laid down centuries in the past.”
McDonald urged the courtroom to acknowledge that insurance coverage brokers at present operate as trusted advisors, licensed and controlled professionals whose responsibility of cheap care ought to embody warning purchasers when protection is in jeopardy.
The “Particular Relationship” Normal Revisited
The Deers’ case highlights a crucial level I’ve made earlier than. The regulation acknowledges exceptions the place an insurance coverage agent’s responsibility extends past merely putting protection when a “particular relationship” exists.
In my earlier submit, Insurance coverage Agent Duties Depend upon Particular Relationships, I defined that courts search for components akin to an extended course of dealing involving recommendation and reliance, the agent’s information of the consumer’s protection wants, a historical past of dealing with renewals or managing dangers, and particular assurances that the agent will preserve protection.
The tragedy in Deer lies in how carefully it matches the spirit of these exceptions, even when not the letter. The dealer had a long time of belief with the Deers, precise discover from the insurer that protection was in danger, and but remained silent. That silence value the Deers their residence.
Why This Case Issues
The Deer resolution reaffirms a strict boundary round agent legal responsibility in Connecticut. Except a dealer affirmatively undertakes to take care of or renew protection, there isn’t any responsibility to warn about nonrenewal.
However the dissent factors to a rising shift in nationwide regulation and public expectation. Different jurisdictions more and more acknowledge that fashionable insurance coverage brokers aren’t mere intermediaries however professionals whose position consists of safeguarding purchasers from foreseeable lapses in protection.
If the regulation doesn’t evolve to replicate that actuality, policyholders will proceed to fall into the hole between business observe and authorized doctrine. As Justice McDonald put it, “the regulation should adapt to the circumstances and wishes of adjusting instances.”
Last Ideas
This case is a reminder for policyholders and insurance coverage professionals alike. For policyholders, by no means assume your protection will mechanically renew. For brokers and brokers, perceive that your purchasers belief you not simply to promote insurance policies, however to guard them from the very dangers insurance coverage is supposed to cowl, together with the chance of being uninsured.
The Connecticut Supreme Courtroom could have upheld the outdated rule, however the dissent affords a glimpse of the place the regulation must be heading.
In my opinion, the Deer case requires reflection on either side of the desk. Insurance coverage is a promise, a societal dedication to guard folks in instances of loss. When that promise is damaged not by fraud, however by silence, the regulation mustn’t look away.
I additionally need to give a shout-out to Harry Johnson of Johnson & Johnson, wholesale insurance coverage brokers, who introduced this vital case to my consideration. Harry and his nephew Fran had been a part of the AI Collective assembly with me and Keona Williams in Austin this week. It was refreshing and enlightening to satisfy such good {and professional} leaders, clearly passionate in regards to the insurance coverage product and the insurance coverage business.
Thought For The Day
“The regulation should be steady, but it can not stand nonetheless.”
— Roscoe Pound
1 Deer v. Nationwide Common Ins. Co., 353 Conn. 262, 341 A.3d 936 (2025).
2 Cheshire Brass Co. v. Wilson, 86 A. 26, 86 Conn. 551 (Conn. 2013).