Search

BLOG

The Insurance Broker’s Duties Part 1

Blog image

An insurance broker's duty of care extends further than merely the duty owed to their client. In the first part of this series on Insurance Broker Negligence, we will examine the duty a broker owes to the following:

  • Their client          

  • The insured (if the insured is not their client)          

  • The insurer 

  • Third parties

The Duty of Care Owed by an Insurance Broker to their Client

Contract and Tort

An insurance broker owes a duty to their client in the law of contract, tort and equity.  If there is a contract between the insured and their insurance broker, then section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 provides an implied term that the service provided by the broker must be carried out with reasonable care and skill. These implied duties can be limited but only ‘where is reasonable to do so’, (section 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977).

The case of Youell v Bland Welch & Co Ltd (No 2) (The "Superhulls Cover" case) [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 431 held that in cases where the insured is the broker's client, a duty in both tort and contract is held concurrently.  Therefore, the insured party can bring an action under either area of law. 

Equity

In order to avoid the limitation restrictions that apply to claims made in contract and tort, under certain circumstances claimants can make a claim under the law of equity, by arguing that an insurance broker has breached the fiduciary duty he or she owed to them.

In order to establish that an insurance broker owes their client a fiduciary duty, a situation of trust and confidence must have developed between them. The principal touchstone appears to be the existence of an obligation of loyalty, although whether or not there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties will turn on the facts of the case.

However, in the case of Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1Lord Millett stated that duties to act with reasonable care were not fiduciary duties.

The Duty of Care Owed by an Insurance Broker to an Insured Party who is not their Client

If an insurance broker is acting as a sub-broker, they can owe duties in both contract and tort to the insured party if they imply, by their actions, that they are taking on a personal responsibility on behalf of the insured.  This is illustrated in the case of Pangood Ltd v Barclay Brown & Co Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 405, where it was held that by obtaining a quotation and effecting insurance in accordance with the terms of that quotation, a sub- broker did not assume a direct responsibility to the broker's principal.

The Duty of Care Owed by an Insurance Broker to the Insurer

The relationship between an insurance broker and an insurer is generally governed by the Terms of Business Agreement.  This agreement will detail any warranties and indemnities between the agent and insurer (including following the standards set out by the FCA).  A duty is owed in contract, tort and equity as well as in statute.

Under section 19 of the Maritime Insurance Act 1906, an insurance broker must disclosure to the insurer.

‘(a) Every material circumstance which is known to himself, and an agent to insure is deemed to know every circumstance which in the ordinary course of business ought to be known by, or to have been communicated to, him; and

(b) Every material circumstance which the assured is bound to disclose, unless it comes to his knowledge too late to communicate it to the agent.'

In the case of Nicholas G Jones v (1) Environcom Limited (2) Environcom England Limited and MS PLC t/a Miles Smith Insurance Brokers [2010] EWHC 759 (Comm), Mr Justice David Steel set out solid guidelines as to the scope of an insurance broker's duties.  These guidelines included the extent of enquiries that a broker needs to make when interviewing a client in order to satisfy their disclosure requirements to an insurer.  Steel J stated "... where an inappropriate and incomplete explanation is afforded to the client as to his obligations, it follows that there is a higher standard of care on the part of the broker in eliciting arguably material information for disclosure."

An insurance broker must be satisfied that the duty of disclosure is fully understood by the client. It is insufficient for an insurance broker to rely on written standard form explanations provided to the insured.

The Duty of Care Owed by an Insurance Broker to Third Parties

An insurance broker may owe a duty to third parties; however, this will depend on whether the third party was in close enough proximity that the loss could be deemed as reasonably foreseeable.

Intended beneficiaries of the insurance policy may also be owed a duty by the broker, even if they are not parties to the policy contract itself.  The case of BP plc v AON Ltd [2006] EWHC 424 (Comm), [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 789, Mr Justice Colman found that AON London owed the claimant a duty of care as a sub-broker, even though no contractual relationship existed between them (the contract was between BP and AON Texas).  A chain of contracts between the sub-broker and insured will not automatically exclude the existence of a tortious duty owed by the sub-broker.

In Summary

The duty of an insurance broker to take reasonable care extends far beyond simply ensuring his or her client understands that they must disclose all relevant information.  It is, therefore, prudent for brokers to take active steps to ensure they are not inadvertently taking on an assumption of responsibility via their actions.

However, from the insurer or insured perspective, in situations where millions of pounds may be lost due to the negligence of an insurance broker, it is a comfort to know that the courts are prepared to extend the scope of a broker’s duties in appropriate circumstances.

If you would like to find out more information regarding insurance brokers negligence then please phone our London office on 0207 993 6960 to make an appointment.

In Part 2 of this series, we will be discussing the standard of care owed by insurance brokers to various parties.

Fisher Scoggins Waters is a leading construction, engineering and manufacturing litigation firm, specialising in disputes and disasters. For further information on this article or any of our litigation services, please contact us on +44 (0) 207 993 6960.

Follow our company page on linkedin for future updates and our views on the latest developments

Categories: Insurance

Please leave a comment

Enter the name you would like to appear on the comment.
(required)
Enter the email you would like to use to get updates. You email is not visible and can not be used by other users.
(required)
Enter you comment help.

 
  Post Comment

Book Launch - 27 November 2019

Will you be joining us?

HSE and Environment Agency prosecution: A new climate

27 November 2019 | Bloomsbury, 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP

Event Registration

First name
Surname
Email address
Any additional information
Post/Event URL
Post/Event Title
CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above in the box below.

Tag Cloud

‘fit for purpose’ obligations 2016 Adjudication adjudication lawyer Adjudication Notice Adjudication process appeal appointing an adjudicator Arbitration Artificial Intelligence Asbestos benefits of off-site construction bonfires book launch breach of contract Brexit Building Defects business interruption Business Interruption Insurance CDM CDM Regulations chambers and partners Charlotte Waters civil proceedings claim payments Claims client COMAH commercial contracts complex construction claims Compliance compulsory sprinklers in warehouses consequential loss construction Construction Construction & Engineering construction contract Construction contract dispute Construction contracts Construction dispute construction dispute lawyer construction dispute resolution construction dispute resolution solicitor construction dispute solicitors Construction Disputes Resolution Construction industry Construction Magazine contracts Contribution claim Corporate Manslaughter Corporate Responsibility costs criminal investigation criminal proceedings cut out fuse Defective Building Work Defective Premises Act developer developers disadvantages of off-site construction Disaster disaster claim Disasters Dispute dispute resolution Disputes DPA Dr Louise Smail Emergency response Emergency Response Solicitors enforcement notices Engineering Engineering dispute Environment Agency environment law Environmental Environmental Agency Environmental damage Environmental Law environmental waste EU EU Procurement Europe Evidence Expert evidence expert witness falls from height Fatal Accidents fee for intervention Fees For Intervention FFI FIDIC Contracts fine Fines Fire Fire Claim fire claims fire damage fire damage lawyers fire sprinkler systems fireworks flood flood claim flood damage food hygiene Fracking fracking claims Fraudulent claims FSW Gross Negligence Manslaughter Guide to Adjudication H&S fine increases; health and safety fines; Health & Safety health & safety breach health & safety sentences health & safety sentencing guidelines health & safety sentencing large corporations health and safety health and safety Health and Safety Executive heave Higher Fines Honey Rose v R How to appoint an adjudicator HSE Insolvency insolvent insurance Insurance Act 2015 insurance bill Insurance Broker insurance claim insurance cover Insurance Disclosure Insurance Disclosure insurance dispute insurance dispute solicitors Insurance Warranties ISO 45001 join us joint venture Judicial Review latest news Law Lawyer legal 500 legal advice privilege Legal Expense Insurance legal professional privilege legal retainers Liability Liquidated Damages Litigation litigation privilege local bodies magistrates’ courts Major Property Damage Manufacturing Martinisation material breach Mediation Michael Appleby Micheal appleby modern methods of construction (MMC) modular construction Mr. Gutaj Notice of adjudication panel firms party wall Performance Bond planning powers of an adjudicator pre-fabrication procurement procurement injunction procurement model Property Damage property danage Public Contract Public Contracts Public Contracts Regulations public procurement public procurement challenges public procurement relationship public sector Publicity Order PUWER recruitment regulation 11 Relief Resolution riot Riot Compensation Act 2016 Risk Risk Assessment safety in the workplace Sanctions Self-build sentence sentencing sentencing guidelines Serious Fraud Office SME Sneller Sony specialist risk and safety consultant Statute Barred Sub-Contractors subrogation subsidance subsidence TCC TCC Guidance team Technology and Construction Court The Adjudicator’s Decision and Costs The Enterprise Act The Lord Young Reforms The Powers Of An Adjudicator The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 The referral notice and response Training tree root UK Underwriters Warehouse insurance Warranties waste water damage WEEE What is Adjudication? what should an adjudication refal notice contain work equipment

Search The Site

Accreditations

 

The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms


Contact Us Now For Advice And Guidance

Enter your name
Enter your surname
Enter your Email
Ask us a Question?