← University
Insurance Broker Duties: From Risk Assessment to Coverage Placement
0 of 6

B. Merritt Excavation & Utilities Inc., a Calgary-based underground utilities contractor, retained Prairieview Insurance Brokers Ltd. in 2018 to secure comprehensive commercial liability insurance for its excavation and trenching operations. Broker Melissa Crane placed the policy with Broadfield Insurance Company but failed to disclose that it contained a Subsurface Operations Exclusion Endorsement, which effectively eliminated coverage for the company's core day-to-day work. In 2023, during a residential development project, a subcontractor struck an unmarked gas line, triggering an explosion that caused approximately $4,800,000 in damages to nearby homes and municipal infrastructure. When Merritt Excavation submitted a claim, Broadfield denied it based on the undisclosed exclusion. Having paid premiums for years on a policy that provided virtually no meaningful protection, Merritt Excavation commenced legal action against Prairieview, its brokers, and Broadfield, alleging broker negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation.

Allocating Responsibility Between Brokers and Insurers for Coverage Gaps

The operators of a family-owned agricultural equipment dealership near Lethbridge requested comprehensive coverage for their commercial property and operations when they first engaged their insurance broker in the late nineteen-eighties. The broker placed coverage with a regional insurer that had delegated binding authority to the brokerage for certain classes of commercial risk in southern Alberta. Over the decades, the business expanded from a single showroom and repair facility into a multi-site operation with satellite locations in Medicine Hat and Brooks, a fleet of service vehicles, a parts warehouse, and a seasonal equipment rental division serving farmers across the prairies. The broker conducted periodic reviews but never systematically reassessed whether the original policy structure remained adequate for the transformed enterprise. When a propane explosion destroyed the parts warehouse and damaged stored equipment inventory worth nearly eight hundred thousand dollars, the insurers denied a substantial portion of the claim on the basis that the warehouse facility had never been properly scheduled on the policy and that certain inventory values exceeded the sublimits stated in the declarations. The insured business brought proceedings against the broker for professional negligence, alleging that the broker had failed to ensure that coverage kept pace with the business's growth. The broker, in turn, sought contribution from the insurer, arguing that the insurer's underwriters had received renewal applications reflecting increased premium volumes and should have inquired into the underlying risk profile. The insurer defended on the basis that it had issued precisely what was applied for and that any advisory shortfall rested with the broker who held the client relationship. This dispute crystallized a question that arises with regularity in Alberta insurance litigation: when a coverage gap leaves an insured partially or wholly unprotected, how do courts allocate responsibility between the broker who advised the insured and the insurer who issued the policy?

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.