The Supreme Court of New Hampshire ruled against an insurance broker on Friday in a divided opinion for giving poor advice on a hotel's insurance coverage.
Golden Beach, Florida-based 101 Ocean Blvd. LLC had been working with Exeter, New Hampshire-based Foy Insurance Group Inc. as its multi-property insurance agent since the early 2000s, according to the 3-2 decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 101 Ocean Blvd. LLC v. Foy Insurance Group Inc.
In 2014, Lloyd & # 39 ;s of London chose not to renew its policy at the Ocean Boulevard Hotel in Hampton, NH. In the case of the surplus market, Foy received a compensation cost of $ 2 million provided for $ 1
"At no time did Foy recommend that (owner Albert J. Bellemore Jr.) purchase additional laws and regulations on behalf of Ocean," the majority statement said.
In October 2015, the hotel was severely damaged. Mr Bellemore was told that the cost of replacing the existing structure would be about $ 1.1 million, and rebuilding it in accordance with the current building code would cost an additional $ 905,070.
He decided to demolish the structure rather than rebuild it. After posting depreciation, the insurer Ocean 910 paid $ 141,141 for the structure's replacement cost, which did not include the additional cost necessary to rebuild the structure in accordance with the building code.
Ocean brought an action against Foy, claiming that the parties had a "Special Conditions", the broker had an obligation to inform Ocean that it did not have sufficient legal and regulatory coverage to pay for reconstruction in accordance with the applicable building code and that Foy had been negligent. A jury largely overturned a verdict to Ocean, allocating 25% of errors to Ocean and 75% of errors to Foy.
Foy appealed the verdict on several grounds, including that there was insufficient evidence that Ocean could have purchased additional laws and regulations.  In the decision in favor of Ocean, the majority view stated: “Seeing the evidence and all reasonable conclusions in the light that are most favorable to Ocean, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational examiner to have found that additional laws and regulations cover was widely available on the market and was specifically available to Ocean.
The dissenting opinion stated: 'I conclude that Ocean failed to provide sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could find that Ocean's loss would not have occurred without Foy's conduct. , and since such evidence is a necessary element of an act of negligence, 'he would repeal the judgment.
Lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.