b'Wyatt continued from page 7standards imposed by Wyatt, somethingMurray believed he purchased appropriateThat same day, Tokio Marine America we should all be aware of. insurance to cover the loss, but the insuranceInsurance Company (Tokio) issued a Marine company denied his claim.Certificate of Insurance (Certificate), which Consider Googling Wyatt v. Union HomeMurray believed fully insured the shipment Mortgage.Reading the first eight or soMurray sued his insurance broker, UPS Capitalin the event of any loss or damage by paragraphs will give you a good overviewInsurance Agency (UPS Capital), for breachUPS.The Certificate contained a Free of the issues. of contract and negligence.He asserted UPSFrom Particular Average (FPA) provision, Capital owed him a special duty to make theproviding a limitation on coverage. An interesting note, one of the attorneys ininsurance policy language understandable to the appellate case was Bruce H. Newman,an ordinary person and to explain the scopeAt some point during the shipment to who was the original General Counsel forof coverage.The court granted UPS CapitalTexas, UPS damaged the equipment and CMA (before Phillip M. Adleson and now,summary judgment after concluding thereMurray submitted a $36,666.85 claim. Robert Finlay). was no heightened duty of care and dismissedTokio rejected the claim on the grounds Murrays lawsuit. the coverage Murray purchased did not A special thanks to Attorney Craig Forry,cover the loss.Specifically, Tokio argued of Forry Law, author of the followingOn appeal, Murray asked to create a new rulethe Certificates FPA provision did not apply article about Murry v. UPS Capital Insurancethat brokers/agents, specializing in a specificto the shipping damages. Agency, Inc.He was kind enough to allowfield of insurance, who hold themselves out us to provide his article along with thisas experts, are subject to a heightened duty introduction.Im fortunate to be on Mr.of care towards clients seeking that particular Forrys e-mail list (www.ForryLaw.com). kind of insurance. The appellate court declined the invitation to create a per se rule; however, it reversed the judgment and remanded the matter, and in doing so confirmed some basic principles of liability for insurance brokers/agents.Murray later learned the policy covered only catastrophic losses such as the entire destruction of the vehicle in which the shipment was carried by UPS, and not damage caused by factors other than a Forry Article catastrophic loss such as mishandling the Introduction freight or other causes.In the recent decision in Murray v. UPSMurray sued UPS Capital, and his negligence Capital Insurance Agency, Inc., the Californiaclaim was based on the premise UPS Capital appellate court reversed the trial courtsowed a special duty to the public and to granting of summary judgment, andMurray to exercise reasonable care in its remanded the action for a jury trial, becausedealings including a duty of disclosure to Murray raised triable issues of fact as toinform Murray of the products available whether UPS Capital undertook a specialto cover in-transit cargo loss and damage duty by holding itself out as having expertiseIn 2018, Murray contacted UPS Capitalin the absence of a catastrophic loss and in inland marine insurance, and Murrayand requested insurance coverage for afurther to fully explain technical provisions reasonably relied on its expertise.shipment that same day from Californiasuch as the FPA provision. to Texas.He completed UPS Capitals form Murray purchased used computer equipmentapplication for a house policy coverage andMurray maintained UPS Capital breached its worth nearly $40,000, which was damagedpaid $350.On the form, Murray describedduty of care by failing to fully explain the FPA by the United Postal Service (UPS) while it wasthe shipment as used computer equipment being transported from California to Texas.valued at $37,000. continued on page 9Page 8 Spring 2021'