Appellate Law

CA1: fishing disaster ends in insurance disaster

By S. COTUS

AGA Fishing Group v. Brown & Brown, Inc., No. 07-2408.  This is a post-judgment insurance-coverage dispute which ends with the choice words ?AGA presents no facts evincing a duty on Defendants? part to ensure that AGA was adequately covered, we affirm.?  It notes that depending on economic conditions, fishermen (some of whom have not been to law school) make over $100,000 per year.  Because these guys are making adequate salaries, should suffer debilitating injuries, the potential for liability increases.  So, one of the fishermen was injured.  Unfortunately, the guys that owned the fishing boat didn?t carry enough insurance for his damages and they had to sell the boat.  They sued the agent for not recommending enough insurance (it would have cost $5,000 to upgrade the policy from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000.)  Alas, in Massachusetts  ?There is no general duty of an insurance agent to ensure that the insurance policies procured by him provide coverage that is adequate for the needs of the insured.?  So, the plaintiffs (the ex-boat-owners) argue ?special circumstances? (such as their lack of education), but because they can?t really show how the agent was always making recommendation as to insurance this fails.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on July 10, 2008 (boomark / email).