Hopefully you really don’t believe this statement. As noted by the following actual E&O claim, friends do sue friends and they can win these suits.
A doctor working for a non-profit group was sent overseas to assist in establishing a medical clinic. The agent, aware that the doctor would not be living in the home for an extended period of time, advised the doctor that he should purchase a vacant home policy which would provide him full coverage in the event of a loss while the home was unoccupied. The agent procured a DP-1 for the doctor.
During the winter, while the doctor was still overseas, the pipes in the house froze causing significant damage. Upon filing a claim, the doctor found out that he had no coverage under the dwelling policy for the loss, contrary to his understanding of the coverage provided. The doctor sued his long time agent friend for the losses he suffered and the case went to trial. The doctor argued that the agent failed to procure the proper coverage and further argued that the agent had advised him that the DP-1 would provide him with “all the coverage” he would need.
The agent argued that the doctor was very cost conscious and that if offered, a DP-2 or DP-3 policy would have been rejected due to cost. The agent further argued that the doctor had a duty to read his policy.
The verdict was found in favor of the doctor. While the doctor had a duty to read his policy, the jury relied heavily on the position that the agent / friend had a duty to procure the broadest coverage or to at least provide options for the doctor to consider.
Whether the client is a friend or not, they should be dealt with in a consistent professional manner. It is important that agents don’t take their friends for granted or assume that they know the coverage being secured. In the above claim, by providing the client with options to consider with an explanation of the coverage afforded by each of the three dwelling forms, there is a good chance the E&O claim, if it was brought, would have had a different outcome.