Dismissal for Failure to Allege Facts to Establish Breach of Contract

Post 5005

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRJ8vggM, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gEwNjztD and at https://lnkd.in/gGb947FR and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

Boat Owner Only Gets Insurance he Asked the Broker to Obtain

After a boating accident in Greece the boat owner, Nicholas Galakatos (“plaintiff” or “Galakatos”), made claims against defendants, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and others (collectively, “defendants”) for negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arose from a boating accident in Greece involving Galakatos’ boat, “Galani,” which collided with another vessel in September 2018. This resulted in damage to both vessels and personal injuries to some passengers.

Nicholas Galakatos v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 24-11259-NMG, United States District Court, D. Massachusetts (February 24, 2025)

Court’s Decision

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that Galakatos failed to state a viable claim for breach of contract because he did not allege any specific provision of the purported agreement that the defendants allegedly breached.

Background

Plaintiff is a resident of Massachusetts and Vermont and owns property in Greece. In 2015, he purchased a boat (“Galani”) to use in Greece. Defendants are associated entities that offer professional services including insurance brokerage. Plaintiff retained defendants’ insurance brokerage services for the first time in 2006 and have purportedly relied since then on their advice to procure insurance.

Plaintiff purchased a one-year, $10,000,000 excess coverage liability policy from American International Group (“AIG”). The AIG policy was to provide coverage for losses sustained “anywhere in the world.” Plaintiff also purchased third party liability insurance for Galani from Groupama Insurances (“Groupama”) in May, 2018. He contends that he disclosed his ownership of Galani and his Groupama insurance policy to defendants that same month.

In September, 2018, Galani collided with another vessel off the coast of Greece, resulting in damage to both vessels, as well as personal injuries to some passengers aboard the other vessel. Plaintiff informed defendants of the accident, and they requested information concerning all of his property and liability exposures, even those for which it may not be providing coverage.

The collision spawned litigation as a result of which plaintiff paid an undisclosed amount in settlement of claims against him. He then made a claim on his AIG policy, which was denied, allegedly because defendants failed to add the Groupama policy to the AIG policy.

Plaintiff sued claiming defendants failed to place and procure adequate liability insurance coverage for Galani.

Legal Standard

Under Massachusetts law, breach of contract claim requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that 1) a valid, binding contract existed, 2) the defendant breached the terms of the contract and 3) the plaintiffs sustained damages as a result of the breach. Similarly, a breach of contract claim under New York law requires a plaintiff to allege 1) the existence of a contract, 2) the defendant’s breach of his or her contractual obligations and 3) damages resulting from the breach.

Galakatos failed to state a viable claim for breach of contract because his complaint does not allege any specific provision of the purported agreement between plaintiff and defendants that defendants allegedly breached.

Plaintiff’s negligence claim is deficient because he does not allege that defendant was duty-bound to procure insurance in the manner he asserted. According to the complaint, defendant had a duty of care to plaintiff to procure adequate third party liability insurance for Galani up to $20 million.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Finally, defendant contends that plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is not actionable because the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to show that a fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants. A fiduciary duty between a broker and an insured arises only in the narrow instance where there is a “special circumstance” or “special relationship” between them which, ordinarily, is a question of fact. Because, Plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty he did not adequately allege a fiduciary relationship existed between him and defendants.

ZALMA OPINION

Galakatos’ complaint was that he received the insurance he asked Marsh to acquire rather than the insurance coverage he needed. Insurance brokers, like Marsh, owe a duty to buy the insurance requested by the insured. The facts alleged revealed that they did so and that there was no allegation of a special relationship requiring that Marsh deal with the insured as a fiduciary. Insurance brokers are not required to be clairvoyant and purchase the coverage the insured, like Galakatos, needed rather than what he ordered.

(c) 2025 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