care of the profession." his or her performance by withholding or failing to provide pertinent information to that professional concerning the matter for which the professional was hired, then an argument can made that the client's action should be barred based on comparative negligence principles. May Amount to Comparative Negligence that while an insured's failure to read a policy does not operate as a bar to relief, in certain situations, it may amount to contributory or comparative negligence. dence from which a jury could find that, under the relevant circumstances, it was unreasonable for the insureds not to have read the policy. In during a hunting trip guided by the insured. The insured sued the broker for failure to procure adequate insur- ance. The court viewed the issue raised as "not being whether the insureds had an absolute duty to read the policy, but rather was there evidence from which the jury could have found that, in the circumstances of this case, it was not unreasonable for the insureds not to read the policy and whether the insureds acted reasonably in relying upon any represen- tations made by their agent." of his insurance needs and the agent's conduct permits a reasonable infer- ence that he was highly skilled in this area, the insured's reliance on the agent to obtain the coverage that he is justifiable. The insured does not have an absolute duty to read the policy, but rather only the duty to act reasonably under the circumstances. The circumstances vary with the facts of each case, and depend on the relationship between the agent and the insured. while insureds do not have an "absolute" duty to read their policy, their failure to do so may amount to contributory negli- gence. Liable to Insured Who Failed to Read Policy insured's duty to read an insurance policy is absolute and may protect an insurance broker from a claim for failure to procure adequate insurance. Rich, MacIntyre & Edwards, Inc., place their homeowner's coverage with Glen Falls Insurance Company. Per Scott Rich's request, the policy provided for an unlimited guaranteed replacement cost. In 2000, Glen Falls notified MacIntyre & Edwards that renewal policies for 2001 would have limits or caps on coverage. For the Riches, this meant that they would be insured for 125 percent of the total amount of insurance available for the dwelling, contents and other structures at the location. The agent received the notice but did not review it and did not relay the information to the Riches. The Riches admittedly did not read the renewal documents. In 2001, the property was destroyed by fire and the Riches filed a lawsuit against MacIntyre & Edwards arguing that the agency failed to inform them of the change in coverage and that as a result of the agency's failure to inform the Riches of the changes in the renewal excess of $250,000. The court held that the Riches had a duty to read their insur- ance policy and barred recovery against the agent noting that the change to the policy was readily apparent and if the Riches had reviewed the documents they would have been aware that they did not have the coverage they had requested. However, it should be noted that some of the minority jurisdictions recognize an exception to this defense. The court in Canales v. Wilson Southland Ins. Agency obligated to examine an insurance policy, the rule does not apply when (1) the bro- ker has held himself out as an expert and the insured has reasonably relied on the broker's expertise to procure the requisite insurance or (2) there is a "special rela- tionship" of trust which would prevent or excuse the insured of his duty to exercise ordinary diligence. WLW13.04&docname=CIK(LE10237295)&rp=%2ffin d%2fdefault.wl&findtype=l&lvbp=T&vr=2.0&fn=_top &sv=Split&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&pbc=A0 3DD158&utid=1" \t "_top" Avondale Cut Rate, Inc. v. Associated Excess Underwriters, Inc., 406 Pa. 493, 178 A.2d 758 (Pa. 1962) Cal.App.4th 624, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 910 (2009) 5 169 N.J. 64, 776 A.2d 792 6 Id. at 69-70, 776 A.2d 792 7 Id. at 77, 776 A.2d 792. 8 Id. 9 American Bldg. Supply Corp. v. Petrocelli Group, Fiorentino v. Travelers Ins. Co., 448 F.Supp. 1364 (E.D.Pa.1978); Floral Consultants, Ltd. v. Hanover Ins. Co, (Ill.1984), 128 Ill.App.3d 173, 83 Ill.Dec. 401, 470 N.E.2d 527; Kirk v. R. Stanford Web Agency, Inc. (N.C.App.1985), 75 N.C.App. 148, 330 S.E.2d 262; Martini v. Beaverton Ins. Agency, Inc., 314 Or. 200, 838 P.2d 1061, 1067 (1992). 12 448 F.Supp. 1364 (E.D.Pa.1978) 13 Westchester Specialty Ins. Serv., Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Zimmer Ins. Agency, 252 Neb. 596, 567 N.W. 2d 548 (1997). 15 583 S.E.2d 203 (Ga. App. 2003) 16 Id. at 204 |