Have you ever wondered how PLUS content gets sourced and developed? PLUS has several volunteer roles that are essential to the development and delivery of content. These roles include:
PLUS Symposia Chairs
PLUS Content Advisory Committees
PLUS Trend Advisors
PLUS Editorial Board
You can find more information about these roles here, and you can see the list of current content contributors in these roles on the PLUS website here.
Ideas generated by these roles as well as the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for National Events allows PLUS to continue to deliver timely, relevant and high quality content. While you might be familiar with the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the PLUS Conference or Symposia, you may not be aware of all of the other content opportunities that are available.
Here is a glimpse at the additional PLUS content channels:
The PLUS Journal is a quarterly publication available exclusively to PLUS members. Articles are written by industry insiders and highlight the hot topics and key issues impacting the professional liability marketplace, as well as upcoming PLUS events and news.
The PLUS Blog is a great place to share thoughts on professional liability insurance with the PLUS membership of over 7,000 professional liability practitioners. PLUS has regular blog contributors and also welcomes one-off posts by members who wish to contribute.
PLUS Podcasts are pre-recorded, audio-only content that is available to members and non-members via the PLUS Connect App. Podcasts are an opportunity to share timely discussions amongst industry thought leaders on new trends and pressing issues.
PLUS Webinars are robust educational presentations which may be live or pre-recorded and require pre-registration.
You can learn more about these content channels here. Interested in submitting an idea? We’d love to hear from you! Use the PLUS Content Idea form to submit your content ideas.
The 2019 Q1 edition of the PLUS Journal is now available, and today we have a guest post from one of the authors, Peter Biging. This post is an addition to his article featured in the Q1 issue of the PLUS Journal, available here.
Peter J. Biging is a partner in the law firm Goldberg Segalla, LLP, where he heads up the firm’s New York metro area Management and Professional Liability practice. He is also Vice Chair of the firm’s nationwide M & PL practice group. Peter can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Peter was assisted in the preparation of this article by Ryan McNagny, a commercial litigation and professional liability associate in the firm’s Manhattan office. Portions of the content of this article will also appear in the American Bar Association TIPS Journal Year in Review Winter issue, covering a broad range of professional liability and D&O developments in 2018.
As a supplement to the Insurance Agents/Brokers E&O 2018 Year in Review article published in the PLUS Journal’s 1st Quarter issue, it should be noted that just before the article was sent out for publication, the Alabama Supreme Court issued what could turn out to be an important decision on the “duty to advise.” See Somnus Mattress Corp. v. Hilson, 2018 WL 6715777 (Ala. Sup. Ct. Dec. 21, 2018). In its decision, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed an Alabama Circuit Court decision dismissing claims on summary judgment against an insurance agent for alleged negligence in failing to advise a mattress manufacturer to purchase business interruption loss coverage. The plaintiff manufacturer argued that the agent should be held responsible for the uninsured loss he suffered following a fire that destroyed a mattress factory, and ultimately ended up putting the manufacturer out of business. In affirming the dismissal, the Court held that an insurance agent/broker generally does not have a duty to advise and cannot be deemed to have assumed a duty to advise absent evidence either that (1) the insurance agent/broker misrepresented the coverage in a manner that the insured could not have known from a reading of the insurance policy, or (2) the agent/broker and insured were in a “special relationship.”
Without setting any bright line rules for when a special relationship may arise, the Court took note of decisions in other states discussing when a “special relationship” can be found, and in so doing appears to have implicitly accepted the following as bases for finding of a special relationship:
Where the agent/broker has entered into an express agreement to provide coverage advice
Where there has been a long established relationship between the insured and the agent/broker of entrustment from which it clearly appears the agent/broker appreciated the duty of giving advice to the insured client, and the client’s reliance upon same
Receipt of compensation by the agent/broker for consultation and advice separate and apart from receipt of commissions on premiums paid
The offering of expertise with regard to a question of coverage where the insured relied on the agent/broker’s expertise in making a coverage decision
Where an ambiguous request has been made for coverage that requires a clarification
See id. at *7-9. Because it found that none of “the types of elements that trigger such a duty were . . . present in this case,” id. at *10, the Court concluded that no basis existed for finding the defendant insurance agent owed a duty to advise the plaintiff to purchase business interruption coverage arising from fire loss.
This decision could prove to be significant. While the Alabama Supreme Court did not lay out its professed standard for when a special relationship can be found to exist, in engaging in an examination of and discussion of the grounds other courts have relied upon for finding of a special relationship, it can be argued that the Court implicitly adopted these standards for use by Alabama state courts going forward.