LEE DEER ET AL. v. NATIONAL GENERAL INS. CO. ET AL., SC 21045

Judicial District of Hartford

Insurance; Negligence; Duty of Care; Whether Insurance Policy Originator Has Duty to Inform Insureds of Policy Nonrenewal. In 2019, the plaintiff Keleen Deer (Keleen), with the assistance of the defendant The Trahan Agency, Inc., purchased a homeowners insurance policy underwritten by the defendant Century-National Insurance Company (Century-National). The plaintiff Lee Deer was named as an additional insured under the policy, which was effective from June, 2019, until June, 2020. Shortly after the policy was issued, an inspection of the plaintiffs' home was conducted at the behest of Century-National and the defendant National General Insurance Company (collectively, insurance companies). The inspection revealed that a portion of the exterior of the home was missing siding. Thereafter, in July, 2019, a home inspection assistant working on behalf of the insurance companies sent an email to The Trahan Agency, Inc.'s office manager, Jessica Perry, notifying her that repairs were required as a condition of continued coverage and advising her to discuss the issue with the plaintiffs. A follow-up email was sent to Perry in March, 2020, advising her that the insurance companies had not yet received a response regarding the missing siding and that the plaintiffs' policy was set to nonrenew if proof of repairs was not submitted by the policy expiration date. According to the plaintiffs, they never received any communication from Perry regarding the matter. The following month, Century-National sent a notice of nonrenewal to Keleen and The Trahan Agency, Inc., by certified mail, which the plaintiffs dispute having received. Less than a month after the plaintiffs' policy expired, their home was destroyed by fire. After they learned that the policy had not been renewed, the plaintiffs brought an action asserting a negligence claim against The Trahan Agency, Inc., and the defendant Kevin Trahan (collectively, Trahan defendants) for their alleged failure to notify the plaintiffs of the insurance companies' intention not to renew their policy. In rendering summary judgment in favor of the Trahan defendants, the trial court concluded, in relevant part, that the Trahan defendants did not have a duty to provide notice of nonrenewal to the plaintiffs under the common law because the agency relationship between the parties terminated upon the procurement of the policy and the plaintiffs had not alleged that any special circumstances existed that justified deviating from the general rule. On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that the Trahan defendants continued to owe them a duty of care, even after the policy went into effect, because a special or fiduciary relationship existed between the parties. In support, the plaintiffs pointed to evidence indicating that they had a "very personal," "unusually close" relationship with The Trahan Agency, Inc.'s office manager and that they had relied on her for years to take care of their insurance needs. The Appellate Court (225 Conn. App. 656) rejected this claim, concluding that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an agency relationship between the parties after the procurement of the policy in June, 2019, because that evidence provided no indication that the Trahan defendants undertook an obligation to seek continuation of the policy after that date. The Appellate Court therefore affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Upon the granting of certification to appeal, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court, which will decide whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that an insurance agent who originates a homeowners insurance policy has no duty to inform the insureds of information received from the insurance carrier regarding nonrenewal of the policy.