In Tifer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119702 (N.D. Fla. July 18, 2019), a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed a state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty against an insurer because the plaintiff insured had failed to plead the existence of a "special relationship" that might sustain such a claim.

The case illustrates the factors that courts may consider when determining whether a fiduciary relationship exists between insureds and insureds under certain state laws.

The complaint in Tifer asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty arising from allegations that defendant insurer had failed to pay all benefits due under an individual disability income policy. The defendant insurer, New York Life Insurance Company ("NYL") moved to dismiss the breach of fiduciary claim, arguing that Florida law does not recognize a fiduciary duty from an insurer to a first-party insured.

Plaintiff Tifer ("Tifer") acknowledged that NYL had correctly stated the general rule. However, citing a 2017 Florida district court decision in Asokan v. Am Gen. Life Ins. Co., he countered that an exception exists where there is a special relationship of trust between the parties. Relevant factors to determine the existence of such a relationship may include "the extent of insurance company's involvement in the client's decision to purchase insurance, and whether the insurance company held itself out has having experience in the field and the insured relied upon that expertise," the Asokan court stated.

Tifer argued that a determination regarding these factors creates a question of fact that precludes dismissal at the pleading stage. The court rejected this argument.

While explicitly withholding judgment on whether Asokan had been correctly decided, the court found that Tifer's complaint failed to allege any facts tending to establish a special relationship between insurer and insured when Tifer purchased the subject policy. Additionally, the court stated that Tifer could not allege such facts for the first time in opposition to a motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the court granted NYL's motion to dismiss plaintiff's state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

[View source.]