APM, LLLP v. TCI Insurance Agency, Inc., 877 N.W.2d 34

APM, a property manager, asked TCI (agent Devin Gaard) to procure builders risk insurance for a Fargo apartment project.
Two policy options were discussed: a Philadelphia policy that covered lost rent/soft costs, and a cheaper Travelers policy that did not.
Alsop (APM’s president) obtained a Travelers quote from another agency and instructed Gaard to procure that Travelers policy "as quoted" without changes.
A fire delayed completion five months; Travelers denied lost-rent and interest claims because the purchased policy lacked those coverages.
APM sued TCI for negligence, alleging Gaard failed to advise or procure endorsements for lost rent/soft costs; the district court granted summary judgment for TCI.
The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding no genuine factual dispute that Gaard followed Alsop’s instructions and no special relationship existed to expand duties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Gaard breach duty by not obtaining endorsement for lost rent/soft costs?	Gaard should have advised or procured the endorsement; misstatement that endorsement wasn’t available was negligent.	Alsop instructed Gaard to buy the Travelers policy as quoted; Gaard followed instructions and acted in good faith.	No breach: Gaard followed Alsop’s express instructions; misstatement alone didn’t create breach.
Was TCI required to offer or procure additional coverage without a request?	TCI had an obligation to inform of available endorsements and procure them.	No duty to add coverage absent a specific insured request.	No such duty under the facts; agent need only follow insured’s instructions.
Did a "special relationship" exist that would expand agent duties?	APM contends reliance on agent created a special relationship imposing broader advisory duties.	No long-standing or exclusive relationship; Alsop used other brokers and sought other quotes.	No special relationship found; insufficient facts to expand duties.
Was summary judgment appropriate?	Genuine issues of material fact exist about breach and special relationship.	Undisputed facts permit only one reasonable conclusion—no breach or special relationship—so judgment as a matter of law.	Affirmed: no genuine factual disputes; summary judgment proper.

Rawlings v. Fruhwirth, 455 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1990) (adopts MN standard that agent must use skill and care of a reasonably prudent insurance person; duty generally limited to acting in good faith and following instructions)
Gabrielson v. Warnemunde, 443 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. 1989) (discusses standard of care for insurance agents)
Perius v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 782 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 2010) (summary judgment appropriate when plaintiff fails to establish factual dispute on essential claim element)
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Skoda, 844 N.W.2d 870 (N.D. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment; view facts favorably to nonmoving party)
Anderson v. Zimbelman, 842 N.W.2d 852 (N.D. 2014) (summary judgment standards)
Bruner v. League General Ins. Co., 416 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (special relationship requires more than ordinary insurer-policyholder interactions to impose advisory duties)