Michelle Moriarty v. Bayside Insurance Associates, 20-56139

In September 2012 Moriarty’s husband bought a life insurance policy from American General Life Insurance Co. (AGLIC) through Bayside Insurance; Moriarty was the sole beneficiary.
Premiums went unpaid for several months in 2016; the policy lapsed nine days before the husband died.
Moriarty emailed Bayside seeking information so she could tender overdue premiums and prevent lapse; Bayside replied with the payment information and said it was “trying to have a team follow up on status” but never followed up.
Moriarty sued AGLIC (putative class action) and brought professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against Bayside alleging a duty to investigate and notify about forfeiture and to advise steps to avoid termination.
The district court granted summary judgment for Bayside on professional negligence for lack of duty; negligent misrepresentation was later dismissed by stipulation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bayside owed a general or special duty to investigate policy status and notify Moriarty of impending forfeiture	Bayside had a duty to investigate, follow up with the insurer, and promptly communicate steps to avoid lapse	An agent’s duty is limited to using reasonable care in procuring insurance; no duty to monitor or notify of cancellations	No general or special duty existed; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Bayside assumed a special duty by promising to follow up, holding itself out as a life‑insurance expert, or via a special relationship/Rowland factors	A promise to “try to have a team follow up” or Bayside’s role created an assumed duty; duties to the insured extend to beneficiary under Biakanja	No express agreement was made; vague statement is not an assumed duty; Bayside was not a life‑insurance specialist nor in a unique position; Rowland cannot create an independent duty	Bayside did not assume a special duty; it was not a specialist and no special relationship existed; Rowland not freestanding to impose duty

Fitzpatrick v. Hayes, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 445 (Ct. App. 1997) (sets narrow circumstances when an agent owes a special duty)
Kotlar v. Hartford Fire Ins., 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 246 (Ct. App. 2000) (no general duty to notify insured of cancellation for nonpayment)
Pac. Rim Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Ins. Servs. W., Inc., 138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294 (Ct. App. 2012) (agent’s duty is generally limited to reasonable care in procuring coverage)
Murray v. UPS Capital Ins. Agency, Inc., 269 Cal. Rptr. 3d 93 (Ct. App. 2020) (specialization/holding out can create a special duty)
Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 483 P.3d 159 (Cal. 2021) (Rowland factors are not an independent basis for duty; used to limit duties from other sources)
Rowland v. Christian, 443 P.2d 561 (Cal. 1968) (multifactor test historically used in duty analysis)
Biakanja v. Irving, 320 P.2d 16 (Cal. 1958) (factors for extending duties to third parties such as beneficiaries)
Ericksson v. Nunnik, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 90 (Ct. App. 2011) (duty is an essential element of professional negligence)
Eddy v. Sharp, 245 Cal. Rptr. 211 (Ct. App. 1988) (same)
Free v. Republic Ins., 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296 (Ct. App. 1992) (illustrative of misrepresentation creating special duty)
Paper Savers, Inc. v. Nasca, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547 (Ct. App. 1996) (misrepresentations inducing purchase can create liability)