Benjamin Aden and Beatrice Aden, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Robert F. Fortsh, Defendant-Respondent, and Johl &…

Summary

The Supreme Court held that a policyholder’s failure to read the insurance policy cannot be used as a comparative negligence defense in a broker malpractice action, affirming the trial verdict for the Adens and reversing the Appellate Division. The Court relied on the fiduciary duty of brokers and longstanding precedent such as Rider and Conklin. Justice Verniero dissented, arguing that comparative negligence should be permissible.