No Means No: History Of Refusing Excess Coverage Informs Whether Insured Would Have Purchased Excess Coverage

A broker's negligence claim was dismissed because the broker was not required to recommend excess UMP coverage which the insured had consistently declined.

Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Underinsured motorist; Agents and brokers – Negligent misrepresentation

Carriere de Davide v. Westland Insurance Group Ltd., [2024] B.C.J. No. 735, British Columbia Supreme Court, April 25, 2024, J. Brongers J.

The plaintiff claimed against his autoplan broker after suffering injuries and losses in a motor vehicle accident which exceeded his basic underinsured motorist protection (UMP) coverage. The action was dismissed on both standard of care and causation. The broker fulfilled its obligation to provide the plaintiff with information about the availability of excess UMP coverage. In finding that the broker met the standard of care, the court considered the plaintiff's history as a longstanding customer of the broker who had been offered and declined excess UMP