Despite interaction with client, agent found to have no duty to procure coverage
An architect in Utah decided to form his own firm in 1987. His business grew considerably; between 1995 and 1997, he made substantial investments in equipment and office furnishings, which prompted an interest in obtaining business insurance. He contacted an insurance agent who previously had provided the architect's personal-lines insurance, including auto and umbrella policies and coverage on the architect's home, boat and recreational vehicle. This agent and the architect had conducted most of their business over the telephone, talking every couple of months. A conversation generally consisted of the architect's request for personal-lines insurance coverage, followed by the agent's fulfillment of each request, without detailed discussion of different types of coverages, according to the case notes.

When he contacted the agent to obtain business insurance, the architect told the agent to place business and fire coverage on his equipment and the contents of his office. According to the architect, the agent replied that he would “take care of that” and would come out to look at the equipment.

About five months later, a fire destroyed the building housing the architect's firm. The loss totaled $1,143,855.50, $940,000 of it from the loss of architectural plans and other valuable papers. While watching the building burn, the architect called the agent seeking confirmation that coverage had been placed. He said the agent replied, “We talked about it, but we never did anything about it.”