The Third Appellate District Court of Appeal (Sacramento) issued an opinion in Mark Tanner Construction, Inc., et al. v. HUB International Insurance Services, Inc. , analyzing, among other things, specific duties owed by an insurance broker. The Court of Appeal held that insurance brokers owe a limited duty to use reasonable care, diligence and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by an insured.

Earlier this month, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six (Los Angeles) issued an opinion in Namikas v. Miller (May 7, 2014, B244685) __ Cal.App.4th__, analyzing a settle and sue case. The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff “failed to establish a triable issue of material fact as to whether, in the absence of the alleged negligence would have received a more favorable judgment or settlement.”

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles) recently issued an opinion analyzing the applicable statute of limitations and tolling periods in a malicious prosecution cause of action.

The Illinois Appellate Court recently held that the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss breach of contract and negligence claims asserted by a home purchaser against a home inspector based on the provisions of the home inspection agreement that explicitly limited the recoverable damages to the cost of the home inspection.

In Skaperdas v. County Casualty Insurance Company, 996 N.E.2d 766 (4th Dist. 2013), the Illinois Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in granting a motion to dismiss made by an insurer and broker with respect to whether an insurance agent owed a duty of care to the insured.

In a recent decision, Melcher v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, the New York Court of Appeals held, in distinguishing its own prior decision, as well as a number of cases in both the trial and appellate courts, that attorney deceit claims arising under Judiciary Law § 487 are subject to a six-year statute of limitations.

It is well settled in New York that there is no “special relationship” between an insurance broker or agent and its client. The New York Court of Appeals, which is the state’s highest court, has held based on this rule that an insurance broker ordinarily has an obligation to obtain requested coverage for clients within a reasonable time or inform the client that the coverage cannot be obtained, but as a general rule the broker has no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct a client to obtain additional coverage.