Superstorm Sandy caused a lot of damage, and exposed quite a few problems. These latent problems only came to light as the water receded. Glazier Group, Inc. v Nova Cas. Co. 2018 NY Slip Op 32576(U) October 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 159101/2014 Judge: Melissa A. Crane is an example of a problem at the South Street Seaport.
After the storm hit, plaintiff found out that it did not have flood insurance. What to do? Litigation against the carrier failed, but continues against the broker.
“For their fourth cause of action, plaintiffs allege that HUB had a special relationship with plaintiffs, who relied on HUB’ s advice and counsel in insurance matters. Plaintiffs further allege that they relied on Fiorito’s statements that HUB had procured all of the necessary insurance for Bridgewaters, and did not obtain additional coverage. HUB argues that there was no such
special relationship between the parties. In opposition, plaintiffs argue that their course of dealing with HUB establishes such a relationship.
Negligent misrepresentation requires proof “(l) [of] the existence of a special or privitylike relationship imposing a duty on [Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants] to impart correct information to [Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs]; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3)
reasonable reliance on the information” (JA. 0. Acquisition Corp. v. Stavitsky, 8 NY3d 144, 148 ). In the context of insurance brokers and insureds, a special relationship may arise when
“(I) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums; (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent; or (3) there is a course of dealing over an extended period ohime which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on” (Voss v Netherlands Ins. Co., 22 NY3d 728, 735  [internal citation omitted]). “[T]he issue of whether such additional responsibilities should be recognized and given legal effect is governed by the particular relationship between the parties and is best determined on a case-by-case basis” (Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 272 ).
Here, plaintiffs successfully allege that they reasonably relied on Fiorito’s incorrect statement that HUB had procured flood insurance. Further, while the complaint does not allege that TGG paid HUB for consultation in addition to premium payments, plaintiffs do claim that that TGG came to HUB with coverage questions, and that HUB was TGG’s exclusive insurance broker (F AC, ~~ 113-115). On a motion to dismiss, these allegations are sufficient to show a special relationship (Voss, 22 NY3d at 735).
Nevertheless, this claim must be dismissed as duplicative. The core allegation underlying this claim is that HUB failed to procure flood insurance for TGG, the same allegation giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and breach of contract. Moreover, plaintiff seeks the same damages on each of those three claims, as well as additional consequential damages on the breach of contract claim “