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
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
