Daryl Wilson (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Nicholas Merritt (Associate-Phoenix, AZ) obtained summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona for Wilson Elser’s client, an insurance brokerage. The plaintiff, an delivery company partner operating approximately 30 trucks, sued our client after its commercial auto policy was canceled for non-payment in September 2023 and not reinstated. The insurer and wholesale broker were previously dismissed by stipulation, leaving our client as the sole defendant.

The plaintiff asserted negligent misrepresentation and declaratory relief claims, seeking business interruption, payroll, and increased substitute coverage costs. The misrepresentation claim rested on the broker's alleged statement that paying the remaining premium would reinstate the policy. Daryl and Nicholas moved for summary judgment on both claims. After oral argument, the court granted the motion in full. On the negligent misrepresentation claim, the court found no evidence that our client made any false statement. It also held that the economic loss doctrine independently barred the claim because the losses were purely economic and arose from the policy our client had been hired to procure. The court also rejected the plaintiff's late attempt to advance a new theory through an expert report, finding that the report lacked supporting facts, the theory had not been pleaded, and the alleged statement was made to the insurer ‒ not to the plaintiff ‒ so the plaintiff could not have relied on it.

The court also rejected all three requests for declaratory relief. It found that a declaration concerning the dismissed wholesale broker’s duties would resolve no dispute between the remaining parties, that apportionment of damages was meaningless with only one defendant remaining, and that the requested declaration concerning a duty to disclose rested on the same failed theory underlying the misrepresentation claim. Judgment was entered for our client, and the case was closed.