When your business or house burns down and you find out, too late, that your property insurance policy was not renewed, you do not just lose your business or home. You lose faith in the system that was supposed to protect it. That is what happened to Lee and Keleen Deer, who believed they were insured when a fire destroyed their Connecticut home. Their broker, Kevin Trahan, had received notice from the insurer that repairs were required to maintain coverage, but never passed it along or had a discussion with them about the renewal.
The Deers argued that after nearly two decades of working with their insurance agent, they had a “special relationship” that imposed a duty on him to warn them that their policy would not renew. The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, did not see it that way. In Deer v. National General Insurance Company, 1 the court recently reaffirmed a strict, traditional rule that once a broker procures the policy, his legal duty ends unless there is clear evidence of an ongoing agreement to maintain or renew coverage or a special relationship between the parties that would support such a duty.
I have written about this issue before in Insurance Agent Duties Depend on Special Relationships, and Insurance Agent Negligence Cases Are Rarely Easy to Prove. The tension between these cases, which often view insurance agents as mere “order takers” versus “professionals,” and the realities of how policyholders rely on their agents, has never been more apparent.
What Happened
The Deers had a long history with their agent, Trahan, who for years placed their homeowners coverage with Allstate. When Allstate exited Connecticut’s homeowners market, Trahan placed their new policy with Century-National. Soon after, the insurer’s inspector found missing siding and warned, through an email to Trahan, that repairs were required “as a condition of continued coverage.”
Trahan never passed that information along. Months later, the insurer sent a certified letter of nonrenewal to the Deers’ home, but it went unclaimed. The policy lapsed, the house burned down, and the insurer denied coverage.
The Deers sued, arguing their agent had a duty to warn them of the pending nonrenewal because of their long and trusting relationship.
The Court’s Majority: No Special Relationship, No Duty
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4 to 2 against the Deers. Writing for the majority, Justice D’Auria reiterated that under long-standing Connecticut law, a broker’s agency relationship ends once the policy is procured. Unless the broker expressly agrees to handle renewals or provides assurances of continuing coverage, there is no legal duty to notify clients about nonrenewal.
The court emphasized that the insurer, not the broker, has the statutory duty to send non-renewal notices. Significantly, it found that a long relationship or “habit of dealing” by itself does not create a special duty. There was also no evidence of communication between the Deers and Trahan during the policy year.
In short, the court applied the traditional “no continuing duty” rule regardless of how unfair that outcome might feel to the policyholder.
The majority even acknowledged its sympathy for the Deers’ loss but concluded that the law must “draw a line” on liability. As the opinion put it, “Every injury has rippling consequences. The problem for the law is to limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree.”
The Dissent: Time to Modernize the Law
Justice McDonald, joined by Justice Ecker, saw it differently and forcefully. The dissent recognized that the rule the majority clings to is more than a century old, dating back to Cheshire Brass Co. v. Wilson in 1913. 2 McDonald argued that in today’s world, where policyholders depend on agents as professionals rather than mere salespeople, an agent’s duty should not end the moment a policy is issued.
He wrote that Trahan’s knowledge of the inspection results and pending nonrenewal created a duty to communicate that information to his clients. The dissent criticized the majority’s bright-line cutoff as “antiquated” and “out of step with modern insurance practice.” Quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous line from The Path of the Law, McDonald reminded the court: “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down centuries ago.”
McDonald urged the court to recognize that insurance agents today function as trusted advisors, licensed and regulated professionals whose duty of reasonable care should include warning clients when coverage is in jeopardy.
The “Special Relationship” Standard Revisited
The Deers’ case highlights a critical point I have made before. The law recognizes exceptions where an insurance agent’s duty extends beyond merely placing coverage when a “special relationship” exists.
In my earlier post, Insurance Agent Duties Depend on Special Relationships, I explained that courts look for factors such as a long course of dealing involving advice and reliance, the agent’s knowledge of the client’s coverage needs, a history of handling renewals or managing risks, and specific assurances that the agent will maintain coverage.
The tragedy in Deer lies in how closely it fits the spirit of those exceptions, even if not the letter. The broker had decades of trust with the Deers, actual notice from the insurer that coverage was at risk, and yet remained silent. That silence cost the Deers their home.
Why This Case Matters
The Deer decision reaffirms a strict boundary around agent liability in Connecticut. Unless a broker affirmatively undertakes to maintain or renew coverage, there is no duty to warn about nonrenewal.
But the dissent points to a growing shift in national law and public expectation. Other jurisdictions increasingly recognize that modern insurance agents are not mere intermediaries but professionals whose role includes safeguarding clients from foreseeable lapses in coverage.
If the law does not evolve to reflect that reality, policyholders will continue to fall into the gap between industry practice and legal doctrine. As Justice McDonald put it, “the law must adapt to the conditions and needs of changing times.”
Final Thoughts
This case is a reminder for policyholders and insurance professionals alike. For policyholders, never assume your coverage will automatically renew. For agents and brokers, understand that your clients trust you not just to sell policies, but to protect them from the very risks insurance is meant to cover, including the risk of being uninsured.
The Connecticut Supreme Court may have upheld the old rule, but the dissent offers a glimpse of where the law should be heading.
In my view, the Deer case calls for reflection on both sides of the table. Insurance is a promise, a societal commitment to protect people in times of loss. When that promise is broken not by fraud, but by silence, the law should not look away.
I also want to give a shout-out to Harry Johnson of Johnson & Johnson, wholesale insurance brokers, who brought this important case to my attention. Harry and his nephew Fran were part of the AI Collective meeting with me and Keona Williams in Austin this week. It was refreshing and enlightening to meet such nice and professional leaders, clearly passionate about the insurance product and the insurance industry.
Thought For The Day
“The law must be stable, yet it cannot stand still.”
— Roscoe Pound
1 Deer v. National General Ins. Co., 353 Conn. 262, 341 A.3d 936 (2025).
2 Cheshire Brass Co. v. Wilson, 86 A. 26, 86 Conn. 551 (Conn. 2013).