Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, by Andrew M. CUOMO, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered January 15, 2008, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud under Executive Law § 63(12), deemed to be an appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered March 17, 2008 (CPLR 5501[c] ), dismissing, inter alia, the causes of action, and so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The complaint failed to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and we decline plaintiff's request that we not follow our decision in People v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 52 A.D.3d 378, 861 N.Y.S.2d 294 [2008], where we held, among other things, that an insurance broker may not be liable to its client for breach of fiduciary duty absent a special relationship, which does not exist here (id. at 380, 861 N.Y.S.2d 294; see also Loevner v. Sullivan & Strauss Agency, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 392, 393, 825 N.Y.S.2d 145 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 808, 834 N.Y.S.2d 88, 865 N.E.2d 1255 [2007] ). Nor has plaintiff pleaded a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based merely on the existence of contingent commissions (see Hersch v. DeWitt Stern Group, Inc., 43 A.D.3d 644, 645, 841 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2007] ).
The motion court also appropriately determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for fraud under Executive Law § 63(12) with sufficient particularity (see e.g. People v. Katz, 84 A.D.2d 381, 384-385, 446 N.Y.S.2d 307 [1982] ). The complaint fails to allege wrongdoing within the meaning of the statute as contingent commissions are not illegal in this State and disclosure of the commissions was not required as of the time of the conduct alleged in the complaint (see People v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 52 A.D.3d at 379, 861 N.Y.S.2d 294; Hersch, 43 A.D.3d at 645, 841 N.Y.S.2d 516). We need not determine whether disclosure is required as a result of a circular letter issued by the Department of Insurance in 2008.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 05, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)