In a case where plaintiff alleged our insurance agent client failed to secure coverage under a homeowner’s policy to cover the policyholder’s mechanics tools used in his hobby of restoring antique Ford Mustangs, Steve Plonski, Esq., obtained Summary Judgment. The policy was clearly not intended to cover the car and insurance company contended the tools were not covered due to a business exclusion; the policyholder settled with the carrier and pursued our client, the producing agent.
In addition to a statute of limitations defense (policy, which clearly indicated the car was not covered, had been delivered to the legally blind insured in 2003) set forth by Steve, he contended the fact that the insurer denied coverage based upon the business exclusion was not an argument to direct to the producing agent, but the insurer, exclusively. The court concurred, holding the insurer may have interpreted the coverage disingenuously, the Agent would have no way of anticipating such a position would be taken and the insured should have made himself aware of the coverage when the policy was delivered. In the event of an appeal, Steve has the opportunity to prevail at that level, as well.