BlogLine

Read the not so fine print: Indiana draws a hard line time frame to bring claim against insurance broker

6/25/25

By: Donald Patrick Eckler and Jessica K. Sterna

In Aegean, LLC d/b/a Public Agency Training Council v. Taggart Insurance Center, Inc., 24A-PL-2270 (Ind. App. Ct. May 30, 2025), the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed critical issues involving statutes of limitations in insurance broker negligence claims and clarified the threshold for establishing an insurance broker’s duty to advise. 

Aegean, a company that organizes public safety training seminars, sued its insurance broker, Taggart Insurance Center, in 2021, alleging negligence for failing to procure event cancellation insurance. This omission allegedly resulted in significant financial losses when Aegean had to cancel events due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, the initial iteration of policies at issue were incepted in 2017. Taggart moved for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred by Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations for tort claims. 

The trial court granted summary judgment in Taggart’s favor, holding that the statute of limitations began to run in 2017- when Aegean received the declarations page and the policy coverage began. Aegean appealed, asserting that there were genuine issues of material fact as to when the statute of limitations should begin and whether a “special relationship” between the parties imposed a duty on Taggart to advise regarding coverage. 

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court’s ruling. First, it rejected Aegean’s argument that the statute of limitations was improperly applied agreeing that the two-year statute began to run when the first policy was issued. 

Second, the appellate court found no evidence supporting Aegean’s claim that a special relationship existed. It emphasized that such a relationship, which imposes a duty to advise, requires more than an ongoing business relationship. The court found no indication that Aegean gave Taggart broad discretion, paid additional compensation or received uniquely tailored services. Thus, no special relationship arose. Had such a relationship existed, it could have imposed an ongoing duty that might have created a question of fact on whether the statute of limitations had run. 

Finally, the court rejected Aegean’s argument that Taggart had assumed a duty to advise based on early representations during their business dealings. The court concluded that any such statements were too general and insufficient to override Aegean’s duty to review its own policy. Even representations such as providing “full coverage” were deemed inadequate to establish an exception to the policyholder’s responsibility. 

This decision reaffirms two critical principles in Indiana insurance law. First, statutes of limitations are strictly enforced and with respect to insurance brokers begin to run when the policy is issued, as policyholders bear the primary responsibility for reviewing and understanding their coverage, regardless of general assurances made by insurance brokers. Second, for a special relationship to exist, the broker’s conduct must extend well beyond the bounds of a typical insurer-broker interaction, and even in such cases, Indiana courts remain reluctant to recognize it as meeting the legal threshold for a special relationship. 

For more information, please contact Donald Patrick Eckler at patrick.eckler@fmglaw.com, Jessica K. Sterna at jessica.sterna@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.