Does an insurance brokerage firm have a duty to recommend a type of liability coverage that it doesn't know the customer needs?
On Dec. 8, 2015, a federal court in Maryland granted summary judgment to a broker in a case alleging that the broker owed such a duty (Schlossberg v. B.F. Saul Insurance Agency of Maryland).
The existence of a “duty to recommend” higher insurance limits or broadened coverage is the central issue in many cases against insurance brokers, including cases from New York, Indiana and California that we have discussed in earlier articles in this space.
Recommended For You
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
