In a rather severe reading of a retainer agreement, Justice Freed of Supreme Court, New York County found that the attorneys were not responsible for any investigation into the insurance coverage of their clients.  In Matz v Aboulafia Law Firm, LLC    2017 NY Slip Op 32147(U)
October 10, 2017  Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 155506/2016 she determined:

“Construing the complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, they have set forth a claim
for legal malpractice. To set forth a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a
plaintiff must allege that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge
commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorney’s breach of his or
her duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages. Leder v Spiegel, 9
NY3d 836, 837 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted), cert denied sub nom.
Spiegel v Rowland, 552 US 1257 (2008). Nev~rtheless, plaintiffs’ claim against Aboulafia and
the Aboulafia Firm are dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) ( 1 ).

Whether an attorney has an obligation to investigate insurance coverage depends, in large
part, on the scope of the agreed representation by the attorney. See Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson,
Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34 (2d Dept 2006). Here, since the retainer
agreement executed between plaintiffs and the Aboulafia firm, which constitutes “documentary
evidence” within the purview of that section (see generally Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d 78,
84-85 [2d Dept 2010]), clearly limits the firm’s representation only to commencing a property
damage claim against Marine. Doc. 26. That agreement further provides that the Aboulafia Firm
“is to do no further work on this claim other than starting a suit against [Marine]. If further work
is required, a separate retainer agreement must be executed by [plaintiffs].” Id. Given the express limitation on the scope of the Aboulafia firm’s representation, plaintiffs’ claim that Aboulafia and/or the Aboulafia Firm should have taken further steps to investigate other possible insurance coverage is thus without merit. See Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) Rule I .2(c). “