We often present cases here from the plaintiff’s point of view.  Here is a case by attorney v. insurance broker over the purchase of "nose" insurance [the opposite of tail insurance.  The attorney wanted to procure "a policy, covering all acts of malpractice prior to the effective date of the policy, irrespective of the date such acts occurred, and irrespective of the date the claim stemming from such acts of malpractice is first interposed."  She did not receive such coverage, although the policy was renewed three times.  Attorney sues broker, and broker moves to dismiss,

Justice Goodman, writing in Steier v. Todd Pallack Insurance runs up against an interesting situation.  Plaintiffs apparently put up an argument which is absolutely not supported by the complaint. "Citing to its complaint, plaintiffs maintain that the action is based on an insurance brokers’ failure to obtain coverage specifically requested by the insured, although as defendants note, the complaint supports no such argument." 

The Court permits plaintiff to ‘amplify" and then asks for more briefs on whether this departure is tort or contract, and if so, whether subject to a continuing duty analysis.  More soon…