· 9/9/2025

Deer v. National General Ins. Co.

Citations

  • 353 Conn. 262

Syllabus

The plaintiffs purchased a homeowners insurance policy with a term of one year that was underwritten by an insurance company, N. Co. The plaintiffs procured the policy with the assistance of the defendant insurance brokers, T and his insurance brokerage firm, T Co. Shortly after the policy was issued, a representative of N Co. inspected the plaintiffs' home and found a defect in the exterior siding. N Co. then sent an email to T Co. informing T Co. of this finding and indicating that the plaintiffs were required to repair the defect and to provide notice of the repair no later than three months before the policy was to renew. The parties disputed whether T Co. conveyed this information to the plaintiffs. After not receiving notice of repair by the deadline, N Co. sent another email to T Co., informing it that N Co. had not received notice of repair and that the plaintiffs' policy would not be renewed if notice of repair was not received by the policy expiration date. Approxi- mately four weeks later, and two months before the policy expiration date, N Co. sent a nonrenewal notice to the plaintiffs by certified mail, which the plaintiffs claimed they never received. Ultimately, N Co. never received notice of repair, and the policy did not renew. Shortly after expiration of the policy, the plaintiffs' home was destroyed as a result of an accidental fire. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought damages from, among others, the defendants, claiming, inter alia, that the defendants had a duty to notify the plaintiffs of communications from N Co., including a nonrenewal notifica- tion, but negligently failed to do so. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment. On the granting of certification, the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held: The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the defendants did not owe the plaintiffs a dut

Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.