No Right to Sue Broker Who Does Not Have Special Relationship With Insured
Post 4899
Posted on September 26, 2024 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v5gatm5-when-insurance-agent-controlled-action-of-broker-no-action-against-broker.html and at https://youtu.be/DfMnGZdF-Ek
Plaintiff Green Technology Lighting Corporation (“Green Tech”) appealed the order of the District Court for the District of Idaho granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Crouse and Associates Insurance Services of Northern California (“Crouse”).
In Green Technology Lighting Corp. v. Crouse And Associates Insurance Services Of Northern California, Inc., a California Corporation, No. 24-66, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (September 20, 2024) resolved the dispute over the existence of a special relationship between an insured and its broker.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The district court granted summary judgment to Crouse on Green Tech’s claim of negligence and broker malpractice for two independent reasons: First, the court held that Crouse did not owe Green Tech a duty of care, an essential element of negligence claims under Idaho law; and Second, the court determined that Idaho’s economic loss rule bars recovery for any negligence committed by Crouse.
Idaho prohibits the recovery of purely economic losses in all negligence actions.. A purely economic loss is one that is not connected to an injury to a person or property because the economic loss rule limits the actor’s duty so that there is no cause of action in negligence. Summary judgment is only appropriate in cases where the rule applies. Green Tech alleged only economic losses connected to the recall of its products. Unless some exception applies, Green Tech has no cause of action for negligence under Idaho law.
Idaho generally recognize two exceptions to the economic loss rule:
where a special relationship exists between the parties, or
where unique circumstances require a reallocation of the risk.
The district court concluded that neither applied in Green Tech’s case.
ANALISYS
The special relationship exception is extremely narrow and applies in only limited circumstances. Idaho recognizes two situations in which a special relationship has been held to exist:
where a professional or quasi-professional performs personal services; or
where an entity holds itself out to the public as having expertise regarding a specialized function, and by so doing, knowingly induces reliance on its performance of that function.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that neither situation fits the facts of this case. The district court correctly held that, although Crouse was a professional insurance broker, it lacked the “custody or control” over Green Tech’s insurance coverage that would justify recognizing a special relationship giving rise to liability. Crouse did not have ultimate authority over which insurance policies Green Tech obtained rather, it was Insure Idaho-Green Tech’s insurance agent-that instructed Crouse to bind the policy with less coverage. Crouse did not unilaterally control the level of liability coverage that Green Tech would receive.
The Ninth Circuit concluded there was thus no special relationship between Crouse and Green Tech based on the professional services Crouse offered. Nor did a special relationship exist due to Green Tech’s reliance on Crouse’s expertise. This exception requires that an expert have actively sought to induce reliance on the part of the plaintiff.
Where there is no indication in the record that the plaintiffs relied upon or were even aware of the defendant’s provision of its special services, there is no special relationship.
The district court found that Green Tech had no knowledge of Crouse’s existence as it interfaced only with Insure Idaho in seeking to procure insurance for its business. Green Tech failed to raise a genuine factual dispute as to this finding. The economic loss rule thus prohibited Green Tech from recovering for any alleged negligence on Crouse’s part.
Assuming that Crouse owed some duty of care to Green Tech in how it performed its brokering services, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the economic loss rule is fatal to Green Tech’s negligence suit.
ZALMA OPINION
The economic loss rule prevented a suit against a broker who had no relationship with the insured and only contact with the insured’s agent. Since the broker acted, basically, as an order taker for the insurance agent and provided no advice or counsel to the insured nor hold itself out as a specialist giving advice to the insured, there was insufficient contact with the plaintiff-insured to allow it to maintain a suit because of the economic loss rule since the plaintiff only lost money.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
The Collateral-Source Rule is a Narrow Exception to the Prohibition Against Double Recovery
Post 4850
Posted on September 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Surety Stands In The Principal’s Shoes And May Assert The Principal’s Defenses.
In Hudson Insurance Company v. Archer Western Federal, JV, No. 1:24-cv-544 (PTG/IDD), United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division (September 18, 2026) Archer Western Federal, JV (“AWF”), the prime contractor for a new fire station at Marine Corps Base Quantico, subcontracted roofing work to Eastern General Contractor, Inc. (“EGC”) for $456,330.
Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”) issued payment and performance bonds, each with a $456,330 penal sum.
AWF later sought recovery under both bonds.
LAW
Under Virginia law, the collateral-source rule is a narrow exception to the prohibition against double recovery. A surety stands in the principal’s shoes and may assert the principal’s defenses. Liability under the bonds required EGC’s ...
Defendants May Not Enjoin a Suit Alleging They Defrauded the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs, automobile insurers, sued medical professionals and healthcare entities, alleging a scheme to submit fraudulent personal injury protection (PIP) bills and supporting documentation for services that were not performed or were medically unnecessary. The complaint asserted common-law fraud, violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), aiding and abetting fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
While the action was pending, Plaintiffs moved to stay and enjoin related PIP arbitrations. A magistrate judge recommended denial. in State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company v. Tri-County Chiropractic And Rehabilitation Center P.C., Civil Action No. 22-4852, United States District Court, D. New Jersey (September 15, 2026)
After the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., the federal court reopened the case and considered the parties’ supplemental...
Violate Terms of Probation and Go to Jail
Post 4848
Posted on September 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Kindness in Sentencing is Often Abused and Probation Becomes Jail
In State Of North Carolina v. Tia Allen, No. COA24-1010, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (September 16, 2026) Tia M. Allen pleaded guilty on 18 April 2022 to several offenses under a plea agreement. The trial court consolidated the convictions, imposed an 11-to-23-month sentence,
On 6 February 2024, her probation officer alleged that Allen had paid nothing, failed to report, and incurred new criminal charges. At the 26 March 2024 hearing, counsel admitted Allen’s nonpayment but did not admit commission of the new offenses; the court did not inquire into the failure-to-report allegation.
Defendant did not deny this probation violation. Instead, when the trial court asked whether Defendant wanted to admit any of the alleged ...
