DiMarino v. Wishkin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that expert testimony was not required where broker’s failure to warn client that coverage could not be obtained was per se negligence
• holding that expert testimony was not required where broker’s failure to warn client that coverage could not be obtained was per se negligence
• holding that expert testimony was not required where broker’s failure to warn client that coverage could not be obtained was per se negligence
• affirming finding that broker was liable where he failed to produce coverage or promptly warn client that coverage could not be obtained
• no expert testimony needed to establish agent’s utter failure to produce coverage or warn of lapse
• per se negligence established where broker failed to procure coverage and notify the client once the coverage could not be obtained

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).