Trusted adviser or order taker? An agent’s standard of care, legal responsibility to clients

I find a great way to start an article is with a meandering hypothetical about ordering food at a restaurant. So, let’s get right to it: In a restaurant, you order a hamburger. The server nods, jots something down, and disappears into the kitchen. Twenty minutes later, the server returns—not with a hamburger, but with a veggie burger. Now, pause the scene. There are a few ways this could play out.

In one version, the server checks the order slip and sees that the hamburger was written down correctly. The kitchen made a mistake. The server apologizes, takes the plate back, and promises to fix it. In this case, the server did her job—the server took the order accurately and relayed it. The error wasn’t her.

In another version, the server looks at the slip and realizes he wrote down burger instead of hamburger. Maybe he was distracted, maybe he misunderstood. Either way, the mistake happened in the ordering process. The server didn’t deliver what the customer asked for, and the responsibility falls on him.

Now imagine a third version: the server wrote down hamburger, but decided—based on the customer’s health profile (which she somehow had access to)—that a veggie burger would be a better choice. In this case, the server has gone beyond her role as an order taker and assumed the role of an adviser.

So, what does this have to do with insurance brokers?

These scenarios mirror the kinds of misunderstandings that can occur between brokers and their clients. And, they help illustrate the concept of the standard of care—what brokers are expected to do, what happens when things go wrong, and how expectations shift depending on the relationship.

The standard of care: The ‘order-taker’ model

In most states, insurance brokers are held to a standard of reasonable care and diligence. In practical terms, this means brokers are expected to fulfill the requests made by their clients—accurately and efficiently. If a client asks for a specific policy, coverage limit or endorsement, the broker must try to obtain it. If it’s unavailable, the broker must inform the client.

But beyond that, there’s no general obligation to advise, to recommend coverage to or to educate clients. Often, this is referred to as the order-taker model. The broker’s role is to take the client’s request and deliver the product. The broker is not expected to anticipate needs, suggest alternatives or evaluate whether the coverage is sufficient.

This model works well when both parties understand the boundaries. The clients know what they want, the brokers deliver it, and everyone walks away satisfied. But as with our restaurant scenario, things can get complicated when expectations aren’t defined clearly—or when the broker’s role begins to shift.

It’s also worth noting that this model assumes a certain level of sophistication on the part of the client. When clients are experienced business owners or insurance-savvy individuals, the order-taker approach may be appropriate. However, when clients are less informed or rely heavily on the brokers’ expertise, the line between order taker and adviser can blur quickly.

Beyond the order taker: When advice becomes liability

Just like our hypothetical server, brokers sometimes go beyond simply taking orders. They offer advice, make recommendations or position themselves as experts. Many brokers pride themselves on their expertise and view the offering of guidance as an integral part of the profession.

But, how much advice can brokers provide before they cross into a different legal territory—one governed by a heightened duty of care?

This is when the concept of a special relationship comes into play. When brokers consistently advise clients, make recommendations or take on responsibilities beyond placing coverage, courts may find that a special relationship exists—one that carries additional legal obligations.

These obligations can include a duty to monitor coverage adequacy, notify clients of changes in the market or even ensure that policies remain in force. In short, the broker may be expected to act more like a risk manager than an order taker.

For more on special relationships, see the article Special relationships happen on a case-by-case basis, which originally appeared in the December 2023 issue of PIA Magazine.

Long-term relationships and the risk of heightened duty

As mentioned, generally, brokers are required to obtain the coverage and limits requested by clients—or inform them if those requests can’t be fulfilled. What’s not typically included in that duty is a responsibility to continually or proactively advise clients about available products or the sufficiency of their coverage.

Those two words—continually and proactively—are critical.

On the one hand, brokers need not worry that meeting with clients to discuss their insurance needs will trigger a heightened duty automatically. The absence of a continual or proactive obligation implies that some level of contemporaneous advice is acceptable.

On the other hand, brokers who do consistently advise clients, offer unsolicited recommendations or take on renewal responsibilities may be stepping into a higher standard of care—one that could expose them to greater liability.

This risk is especially pronounced in long-term relationships. Over time, clients may come to rely on their brokers not just for placement, but for guidance. If the broker has historically provided reminders, renewal notices or coverage reviews, courts may interpret that pattern as evidence of a special relationship—even if no formal agreement exists.

Case study

A recent case from Connecticut illustrates these principles in action. In Deer v. National General Insurance Co.,[1] the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed whether brokers had a duty to notify clients when their homeowners insurance policy was not renewed.

Lee and Keleen Deer purchased a homeowners policy through their broker. The policy provided coverage from June 27, 2019, to June 27, 2020. After an inspection revealed missing exterior siding, the carrier requested repairs and proof of those repairs by March 27, 2020. When the documentation wasn’t received, the carrier issued a nonrenewal notice via certified mail.

Despite multiple delivery attempts, the Deers claimed they never received the notice. Their policy expired, and weeks later, their home was destroyed by fire—resulting in a denied claim and a lawsuit against both the insurer and the broker.

Did the broker have a legal duty to notify the Deers of the nonrenewal?

The plaintiffs argued that their long-standing relationship with the broker—nearly two decades—and their reliance on his expertise meant he had a duty to keep their insurance active and up to date.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of the broker. The court emphasized that, under Connecticut law, the duty to notify an insured of nonrenewal rests with the insurer, not the broker—unless there is a specific agreement or course of conduct suggesting otherwise.

The court reviewed emails, conversations and the overall broker-client relationship, and found no promise—written or verbal—that the broker would handle renewals or send nonrenewal notifications.

Learning from the case

While the Deer decision is specific to Connecticut, its reasoning would likely apply in many states. The key fact was that the broker had never provided nonrenewal notifications in the past. If the broker had done so previously—or if the agency routinely provided such notices—a heightened duty might have been found.

The case offers a cautionary tale for brokers navigating the boundaries of their professional responsibilities. One of the most important takeaways is the need to approach proactive service with care. While going above and beyond for a client may seem like good customer service, it can unintentionally create additional obligations. A broker who routinely offers unsolicited advice or takes on tasks, like renewal tracking, may be seen as stepping into an advisory role—one that carries a higher legal standard.

Clear communication is essential. Brokers must ensure that clients understand exactly what services are being provided—and just as importantly—what services are not. Setting expectations early in the relationship helps prevent misunderstandings and protects both parties if disputes arise.

Documentation plays a critical role as well. Every interaction should be recorded, including:

• what the client requested;
• what the broker offered; and
• what was ultimately declined.

These records can serve as a vital defense if a claim or lawsuit emerges, demonstrating that the brokers fulfilled their duty of care.

Consistency is another cornerstone of risk management. If an agency chooses to provide policy change notifications or renewal assistance, those services should be delivered uniformly across all clients. Inconsistent service—where some clients receive reminders and others do not—can create exposure to errors-and-omissions claims and can undermine the agency’s credibility.

Related to the documentation and consistency, is the adoption and use of standardized procedures and internal policies. Agents should consider developing written protocols for:

• handling policy renewals;
• nonrenewal notifications; and
• client communications.

Training staff to follow these procedures consistently can mitigate the risk of oversight and ensure compliance with legal requirements. In the event of a claim or lawsuit, demonstrating established, uniform practices add credibility to the agency’s defense, and supports the position that the standard of care was met.

Back to the table

Let’s return to our restaurant one last time.

The customer ordered a hamburger. He got a veggie burger. Maybe the server wrote it down wrong. Maybe the kitchen messed up. Maybe the customer didn’t speak up. Whatever the case, the outcome wasn’t what anyone wanted.

In insurance, the stakes are higher than dinner. Misunderstandings can lead to uncovered losses, legal battles and damaged relationships. That’s why the standard of care matters. It’s not just about taking orders—it’s about knowing what role you’re playing, and making sure your client knows it too.

Because in the end, everybody wants the same thing: to get what they ordered—and to know they’re being taken care of.

This article originally appeared in the December 2025 issue of PIA Magazine.

---

[1] Lee Deer, et al. v. National General Insurance Co., et al. (SC 21045)