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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
