Justice Francesca Connolly
Plaintiff insured moved for partial summary judgment on liability against insurance broker T&H Brokers, and an inquest on damages. T&H opposed arguing questions of fact existed. Plaintiff argued T&H was negligent in binding plaintiff to a policy of insurance at a substantially higher premium than T&H represented or plaintiff authorized. T&H contended that it orally advised plaintiff on various occasions that a penalty rate would be 100 percent if the second project was not build, to which plaintiff agreed as it believed the second project would be build without issue. The court found plaintiff established its prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment on its claim for negligence, noting T&H’s testimony at a prior arbitration proceeding established that T&H breached its duty to plaintiff by binding it to a policy of insurance at a substantially higher premium rate than T&H previously represented and that plaintiff authorized. It ruled T&H failed to submit sufficient proof to show it was not negligent in failing to procure the requested insurance coverage, noting, at best, T&H’s proof showed plaintiff was made aware of the 100 percent penalty rate over a year after T&H improperly bound the coverage. Hence, the proof failed to create an issue of fact, granting plaintiff’s motion.
