Example E&O Claims


Insurance Agents E & O Claims Examples

Plaintiffs discovered that they didn’t have workers’ compensation coverage after an employee who was burned in an explosion on the job sued them. Defendant insurance agent had not documented the conversation in which plaintiffs had allegedly refused workers’ compensation coverage, and thus, the agent was held liable for the amount owed to the injured employee.

Rhino Linings v. Hilb, Rogal, and Hamilton Ins. Services (July 2007 – Los Angeles Superior Court, CA), $5.8 million verdict.


Plaintiffs did not read their policy, and discovered after their condo was damaged by a fire that their homeowner’s policy provided only $1,000 of interior coverage on their $48,000 condo. They sued their insurance agent for negligent failure to procure adequate coverage for the structure and personal items. The court held that the insurance agent should have reviewed the coverage provided by the condominium association, which he didn’t do. In addition, the comparative negligence defense holding the policy holders partially responsibility failed because a client is entitled to rely on the broker’s expertise in obtaining proper coverage.

Aden v. Fortsh (July 2001 – on appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey), $20,877 verdict upheld.




Defendant agent assured Plaintiff contractor and subcontractor that the policy included basic pollution coverage, when in fact it did not. After an spill on a job, the insurance company refused to pay damages, and the contractor and subcontractor discovered that pollution coverage was specifically excluded under the policy. Defendant agent was found liable for negligently misrepresenting the presence of coverage to the Plaintiffs.


Advanced Environmental Technology Corp. v. Brown (October 2000 – on appeal to the 4th Circuit), $ 434,154 verdict upheld.




After their insurer became insolvent, Plaintiff insured sued their insurance agent for negligence, fraud, and breach of contract in violation of state law for negligently placing their policy with an insurer not admitted in New York and for not filing the required papers with the state, including those showing proof of denial by three admitted carriers. The defendant agent was held to have breached his fiduciary duty by not strictly adhering to these state requirements and was liable when the insurer became insolvent to the extent that the insurer would have been liable.


East Coast Management v. Genatt Associates (June 2005 – on appeal to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, NY), at least $50,000 for claims expenses already incurred and for further expenses.





Plaintiff grocery store specifically requested that its boiler and machinery coverage include coverage for food spoilage. Plaintiff sued its insurance agent for negligence in failing to actually procure coverage for food spoilage due to off-premises power interruptions. The defendant insurance agent was found liable because he failed to advise that through some mistake the policy never had this “spoilage” coverage in place, which was discovered after a lightning strike resulted in a power interruption causing substantial food spoilage.


Polly Drummond Thriftway v. Borden Co. (May 2000 – District Court, DE), $278,867 verdict.





No claim to government works or material copyrighted by third parties. This document also does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not intended to render legal, tax, or other professional advice. It includes only general information for illustrative purposes that may not apply to a particular circumstance and therefore should not be relied upon in any manner. Laws and rules are subject to change, so always consult an attorney, financial consultant, or other professional before taking any action.




Superior Insurance has access to multiple Errors and Omissions markets and can find the most competitive rates for your policy!

Insurance Poll

What's most important to you when purchasing insurance?

Customer service - 12.5%
Policy content - 25%
Having a dedicated agent - 0%
Price - 25%
Financial strength of the carrier - 25%
Buying online, convenience - 12.5%

Total votes: 8
The voting for this poll has ended on: 01 Jun 2015 - 00:00