With regard to the standard of care of an insurance agent, Connecticut law, at present, does not distinguish between the duty of an agent at the time of procurement of coverage and the duty of an agent at the time of automatic renewal.  The three leading Connecticut decisions concern only an agent's duty at the time the agent initially secures coverage.  See Ursini v. Goldman, 118 Conn. 554 (1934); see also Dimeo v. Burns, 6 Conn. App. 241 (1986); Todd v. Malafronte, 3 Conn. App. 16 (1984). 

At the time of issuance, the standard of care for insurance agents under Connecticut law is not that of ordinary negligence but the knowledge, skill and diligence of insurance agents in Connecticut during the relevant time period and in similar cases.  See Dimeo, 6 Conn. App. at 244-45.  This standard, as articulated in Ursini, Dimeo and Todd, has been incorporated into the model civil jury instructions.  See Civil Jury Instructions, 3.8-7 Insurance Agent Malpractice (Jan. 1, 2008), (citing Ursini, 118 Conn. at 559; Dimeo, 6 Conn. App. at 244-45; Todd, 3 Conn. App. at 22).

There is no equivalent Connecticut case law or jury instruction as to the requisite duty of an agent at the time of automatic renewal of an insurance policy.  That being said, extrajurisdictional decisions support the application of a lesser duty at automatic renewal, the scope of which varies by jurisdiction.  See Cleary v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 63 Ill. App. 3d 637, 638 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 1978) (finding that the law does not impose on an insurance agent the duty of reviewing the adequacy of an insured's coverage each time a policy is due for such renewal); see also M & E Mfg. Co. v. Frank H. Reis, Inc., 258 A.D.2d 9, 11 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1999) (holding that, in the context of professional insurance agent liability cases, the agent "owed no duty to advise plaintiff to obtain additional coverage in the absence of any request by plaintiff for additional coverage or of a special relationship between the parties"); Gabrielson v. Warnemunde, 443 N.W.2d 540, 544 (Minn. 1989) ("Once a policy has been issued, the insurance agent has only a limited duty to update the insurance policy.  The agent has no 'ongoing duty of surveillance' or obligation 'to ferret out at regular intervals information which brings policyholders within the provisions of an exclusion.'").  As this issue has not been directly addressed by Connecticut courts, the scope of the agent's duty at the time of automatic renewal presents an issue that should be carefully considered under the facts and potentially raised.

1 Section 3.8-7 of the model civil jury instructions provides, in pertinent part: The plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of the defendant, the plaintiff was damaged. The plaintiff need not prove that the defendant failed to use the required care, skill, and diligence in all the ways alleged.  It is enough if the plaintiff proves one or more of the allegations of negligence, provided the plaintiff also proves that such negligence was a legal cause of (his/her) losses. The plaintiff claims that in failing to obtain the insurance coverage requested by the plaintiff, the defendant insurance agent breached (his/her) obligation to perform under the reasonable standard of care of an insurance agent.  The defendant held (himself/herself) out to be a skilled insurance agent.  As such, the defendant was bound to exercise the same degree of care as a skilled insurance agent of ordinary prudence, engaged in the same line of business. Negligence is the breach of a legal duty which one person owes to another to care for the safety of that person or that person's property.  To the extent that the defendant was acting as the plaintiff's agent, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence in obtaining the insurance, and any negligence or other breach of duty on the defendant's part that defeats the insurance which (he/she) undertakes to secure renders (him/her) liable to the plaintiff for the resulting loss. Where an agent, like the defendant, undertakes to procure a policy affording protection against a designated risk, the law imposes upon (him/her) an obligation to perform with reasonable care the duty (he/she) has assumed, and the defendant may be held liable for loss properly attributable to (his/her) breach.  An agent acts negligently if (he/she) fails to obtain the insurance requested or fails to notify the client of (his/her) inability to do so.

As I have already mentioned, the plaintiff has the burden of proving its negligence claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that is, that the defendant's conduct represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care.  Under our law, the plaintiff must prove this by expert testimony.  More specifically, the plaintiff must establish, through expert testimony, both what the standard of care is and the allegations that the defendant's conduct represented a breach of that standard.  Additionally, the plaintiff must establish through expert testimony that the breach of the standard of care was a legal cause of the injury that the plaintiff claims to have occurred. 

Keeping in mind all the requirements I just discussed, if the plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant breached the prevailing professional standard of care, or that said breach was a legal cause of the injuries claimed, or that no damages resulted therefrom, you must render a verdict for the defendant on this claim.

Id.