Connecticut High Court Clarifies Broker’s Post‑Placement Duties: No Duty to Relay Nonrenewal Absent Undertaking; Longstanding Relationship Alone Is Insufficient

Introduction

In Deer v. National General Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Connecticut addressed a recurring, practical question in insurance-coverage litigation: after a broker has placed a homeowners policy, does the broker have a legal duty to alert the insured to an insurer’s intention not to renew that policy? The case arose from a devastating loss—a house fire that occurred shortly after the homeowners policy lapsed for nonrenewal. The insureds (Lee and Keleen Deer) argued their longtime broker (Kevin Trahan and The Trahan Agency, Inc.) owed them a duty to convey the insurer’s communications about required repairs and impending nonrenewal. The defendants countered that, under settled agency law and Connecticut precedent, a broker’s duty ends once the requested coverage is procured unless the broker affirmatively undertakes renewal or maintenance responsibilities.

Framing the dispute as a pure duty question suitable for plenary review, the Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment in favor of the broker. It held that Connecticut adheres to the general rule: a broker’s agency for the insured terminates once the policy is successfully placed; absent an express or implied undertaking to assist with renewal or maintenance, the broker has no legal duty to notify the insured of the insurer’s plan not to renew. The Court also clarified that a long-standing relationship, by itself, does not constitute the “special circumstances” necessary to extend the agency relationship or impose continuing advisory duties. Two justices dissented.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court reaffirmed the general agency rule: the broker’s duty to the insured is to exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence in procuring the requested policy. When that purpose is achieved, the agency ends, and no continuing duty attaches by default.
There is a narrow exception: if the broker agrees—expressly or by conduct—to assist with maintaining or renewing coverage, a continuing duty arises, including the duty to timely inform the insured if the insurer will not continue the risk.
On the record presented, there was no evidence that the broker agreed to maintain or renew the Deers’ coverage, no evidence of renewal discussions or actions taken on the insureds’ behalf, and no prior course of dealing showing the broker routinely handled renewals.
Connecticut’s statutory framework places the notice-of-nonrenewal obligation on insurers, not brokers, and does not require actual receipt. A broker is entitled to rely on the insurer’s statutory and contractual notice regime unless the broker has undertaken renewal responsibilities.
A long history between the parties, without more (especially given a two-year interruption when the insureds used a different brokerage), is insufficient to create a continuing duty.
Holding: The broker owed no duty to notify the insureds of the insurer’s impending nonrenewal under these circumstances. The Appellate Court’s judgment was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role in the Court’s Reasoning

The Court’s analysis rests on bedrock agency principles and a consistent line of Connecticut and national authorities:

Ursini v. Goldman, 118 Conn. 554 (1934). Establishes that a broker owes the insured reasonable skill and diligence in effecting the insurance promised; liability arises if the broker’s negligence defeats the procurement.
Lewis v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co., 154 Conn. 660 (1967). Distinguishes agents from brokers and holds that the broker is the insured’s agent for procurement—but the agency terminates once the policy is obtained. This is the lynchpin for the general “no continuing duty” rule.
Rovella v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 121 Conn. 134 (1936); Westmoreland v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 144 Conn. 265 (1957). Reinforce reliance on insurers’ contractual and statutory notice obligations, supporting the idea that brokers need not duplicate those obligations absent an undertaking.
Precision Mechanical Services, Inc. v. T.J. Pfund Associates, Inc., 109 Conn. App. 560 (2008), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 940 (2008). Critical for the “exception”: if a broker undertakes to renew or maintain coverage, a continuing duty arises, including a duty to inform the insured if continuation is declined. The Supreme Court carefully situates this exception as narrow and fact-dependent, rooted in actual undertakings and conduct, not mere expectations.
Peerless Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 241 Conn. 476 (1997). On summary judgment, a party must produce evidence of past practices or undertakings rather than rely on assumptions; used to show the Deers lacked evidence of a renewal practice by the broker.
Duty framework cases: Osborn v. Waterbury, 333 Conn. 816 (2019); Gonzalez v. O & G Industries, Inc., 341 Conn. 644 (2021); Iacurci v. Sax, 313 Conn. 786 (2014). Establish that the existence and scope of duty are issues of law, reviewed de novo.
Policy-limiting duty: Lawrence v. O & G Industries, Inc., 319 Conn. 641 (2015); Karas v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 335 Conn. 62 (2019). Emphasize that courts must draw workable lines on legal duties to avoid limitless liability; the Court invokes this logic to decline expanding brokers’ duties.

The Court also draws on national consensus authorities:

New Appleman on Insurance Law, Couch on Insurance, and Weimer’s Law of Commercial Insurance Agents and Brokers: These treatises collectively reflect the majority rule that a broker’s obligations end when the placement is complete unless the broker undertakes renewal or policy-maintenance tasks.
Out-of-state cases echoing the rule and exception: Cronin v. Washington National Ins. Co. (11th Cir. 1993); Indiana Restorative Dentistry v. Laven (Ind. 2015); Trinity Universal v. Burnette (Tex. Civ. App. 1977) (continuing duty where broker actually undertook renewals); and many others (Faulkner, Hecker, Williams, Admiral Ins., Pacific Rim Mechanical, Kotlar, Collins, Isaacson) that either follow the general rule or recognize the narrow exception when an undertaking is shown.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps.

Define the default rule and its rationale. Under Connecticut law, the broker’s agency ends upon successful placement. That rule rests on general agency principles (the agent’s authority and duty are coextensive with the task undertaken) and on the statutory/contractual scheme that places nonrenewal notice duties on insurers. The Court underscores that General Statutes § 38a‑323(a)(1) requires insurers to send notice of nonrenewal; actual receipt is not required, and the obligation is owed to the insured, not the broker.
Define the exception and the evidentiary threshold. A broker’s post-placement duty arises only where the broker affirmatively agrees or, by conduct and communications, assumes responsibility to maintain or renew coverage. The Court emphasizes that courts must look for concrete evidence of such an undertaking: renewal meetings, soliciting renewal applications, providing renewal quotes, collecting information for renewal, or a historical course of dealing showing the broker actually handled renewals. Mere subjective expectations or reliance by the insured are insufficient without evidence of the broker’s undertaking.
Apply the rule and exception to the record. The Deers’ evidence did not show an undertaking. There were no communications about renewal, no evidence of a routine of renewal services in prior years, and, indeed, an intervening two-year period with a different broker. Even assuming the broker attempted to call about the nonrenewal (which the insureds denied), such attempts do not amount to an agreement to ensure continued coverage. Century‑National’s emails to the broker did not themselves extend the broker’s agency toward the insured; the focus is on the broker‑insured relationship. The plaintiffs’ expert testimony that brokers should notify insureds of nonrenewals could not create a legal duty where the law does not recognize one absent an undertaking.

The Court rejected arguments that the insurer’s July 2019 email amounted to a cancellation of the existing policy (it did not; the issue was nonrenewal), and clarified the proper reading of Precision Mechanical and Lazzara: the duty to notify an insured that coverage won’t continue arises only when the broker first undertakes to seek continuation or renewal. Finally, while expressing sympathy for the Deers’ loss, the Court declined to judicially expand brokers’ duties, noting that any broader duty is a legislative policy choice given the heavily regulated nature of insurance intermediaries.

Impact

This decision is a significant restatement and sharpening of Connecticut law on broker duties post-placement.

For brokers and agencies:
- Confirmation that, absent a specific undertaking, you are not legally obligated to relay nonrenewal notices or monitor insureds’ compliance with underwriting conditions once the policy is placed.
- However, if you do undertake renewal or maintenance work—solicit renewal info, send quotes, assure continuation—you assume a duty measured by ordinary professional care, including timely notice if continuation is declined.
- Practical effect: write clear engagement letters delineating the scope of services; avoid ambiguous communications suggesting you “keep clients covered” unless you intend to assume that duty and systematize the work.
For insureds:
- Do not assume your broker will monitor renewals or relay underwriting repair demands unless you have an explicit agreement or a demonstrated practice.
- Track renewal dates and comply with repair conditions; verify mailing addresses; consider electing electronic notices; ask for written confirmation if you want the broker to handle renewals.
For insurers:
- Mailing nonrenewal notices in accordance with § 38a‑323(a)(1) remains sufficient; actual receipt is not required.
- Although not required, many carriers will continue to copy the agent/broker of record; this decision does not transform that courtesy into a legal duty for the broker absent an undertaking.
For litigators:
- To survive summary judgment on a broker‑duty claim, plaintiffs must point to concrete evidence of an undertaking: renewal routines, communications, prior renewals handled by the broker, quotes, application assistance, or compensation arrangements beyond ordinary commissions.
- Expert opinions about “industry standards” cannot create a duty where common law and statutes do not recognize one.
Policy and legislative angle: The Court expressly leaves room for the General Assembly to impose a broader statutory duty on brokers to forward nonrenewal notices or ensure actual notice in certain lines (e.g., homeowners). Expect trade‑offs between consumer protection and the operational burdens on agencies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Broker vs. Agent: An “agent” typically represents an insurer; a “broker” typically represents the insured. In this case, the court analyzed duties owed by a broker to an insured.
Procurement vs. Renewal: Procurement is getting the policy in place. Renewal is the process of getting coverage for the next term. Under default rules, a broker’s legal duty ends once procurement is complete unless the broker undertakes renewal responsibilities.
Nonrenewal vs. Cancellation: Cancellation ends a policy before its expiration; nonrenewal simply means the policy will not continue after its term ends. This case involved nonrenewal. Connecticut law requires the insurer to send notice of nonrenewal; proof of actual receipt is unnecessary.
Undertaking (Extended Agency): An undertaking occurs when a broker agrees—expressly or by consistent conduct—to assist with renewals or maintaining coverage (e.g., gathering renewal information, sending quotes, assuring continuation). Once an undertaking is shown, the broker owes duties consistent with that undertaking.
Longstanding Relationship: A long history alone does not create a continuing legal duty. Courts look for conduct showing the broker actually handled renewals or promised to do so.
Summary Judgment and Evidence: At summary judgment, courts require concrete evidence—documents, emails, testimony—showing an undertaking. General expectations or beliefs are insufficient.

Key Precedents and How They Shaped the Decision

Ursini v. Goldman (1934): Anchors the duty to the task the broker undertook—procurement. Extending beyond that task requires a new undertaking.
Lewis v. Michigan Millers (1967): The doctrinal foundation that the broker’s agency ends once the policy is placed; nothing further is owed absent authorization or agreement.
Precision Mechanical (2008): Supplies the exception: if the broker undertakes to seek renewal, duties arise to carry out that undertaking with reasonable care, including notifying if the insurer declines to continue coverage.
Statutory framework (§ 38a‑323(a)(1)): Keeps the nonrenewal‑notice duty with the insurer, supporting the limited scope of brokers’ continuing obligations.

The Dissent (Two Justices) and the Majority’s Response

Two justices dissented. Although the full dissent is not reproduced, the majority characterizes and replies to two key themes:

Characterization of insurer communications: The dissent viewed the insurer’s July 2019 email as manifesting an intent to cancel; the majority rejected that reading, stressing that the policy was not cancelled but simply not renewed after expiration.
Modernizing broker duties: The dissent urged reconsideration of the traditional agency rule in light of contemporary insurance practices and consumer expectations. The majority declined judicial expansion, holding that any broad policy shift belongs to the legislature, especially given Connecticut’s intensive regulation and licensing of insurance intermediaries.

This exchange highlights a policy fault line: consumer protection through enhanced broker duties versus predictability and cost containment through a clear, limited duty tethered to undertakings. The majority favored doctrinal stability and legislative primacy for any change.

What Would Have Changed the Outcome?

Insureds seeking to establish a broker’s continuing duty should develop evidence of an actual undertaking, such as:

Written agreement that the broker will handle renewals or monitor underwriting conditions.
Emails or messages offering renewal quotes, gathering information for renewal, or assuring continuation.
A reliable course of dealing showing the broker historically managed the insured’s renewals.
Compensation arrangements indicating post‑placement servicing beyond ordinary commissions.

Practice Pointers

For brokers:
- Use engagement letters that clearly define the scope (placement only vs. ongoing renewal/maintenance services).
- If you undertake renewal tasks, document your process and timelines, and deliver notices in writing with confirmation.
- Avoid ambiguous assurances like “we’ll make sure you’re always covered” unless your systems and agreements support that.
For insureds:
- Calendar expiration dates; verify mailing and email addresses; consider e‑delivery preferences.
- If you expect broker assistance with renewals, secure that commitment in writing and maintain contact as renewal approaches.
- When an insurer requires repairs as a condition for renewal, complete and document them promptly and submit proof directly and through the broker.
For insurers:
- Maintain robust proof of mailing for nonrenewal notices and consider redundant channels (e.g., email, agent copy) even if not legally required.

Conclusion

Deer v. National General Insurance Co. crystallizes Connecticut’s approach to a common, consequential question in broker‑liability litigation. The Court confirms the majority rule: a broker’s duty is bounded by the task undertaken—procurement—unless the broker expressly or impliedly assumes more. The insurer bears the statutory duty to send nonrenewal notices; a broker may rely on that regime unless it has undertaken renewal responsibilities. A long relationship, without evidence of such an undertaking, is not enough to create a duty.

Key takeaways:

The broker’s default duty ends at successful placement; no legal duty to relay nonrenewal exists absent an undertaking.
The exception is narrow and evidence‑driven: plaintiffs must show an express agreement or consistent conduct amounting to a renewal/maintenance undertaking.
Connecticut’s statutory framework cements the insurer’s notice role and does not require proof of actual receipt.
The Court leaves any broader reallocation of post‑placement responsibilities to the legislature.

By emphasizing clear lines and objective evidence of undertakings, the decision promotes predictability in broker‑liability cases while preserving a targeted negligence remedy when brokers voluntarily assume renewal duties but fail to exercise reasonable care in carrying them out.