The respondents submit that the parties had a sophisticated business relationship, and that the respondents were not exercising any unilateral power or discretion with respect to the appellants’ affairs. I agree that the duty breached by the respondents in this case was not a fiduciary one. Specifically, the relationship does not satisfy the second Frame v. Smith criterion. There was no delegated power that could be unilaterally exercised by the respondents, nor was there a conflict of interest that impacted on the appellants’ interests. The decisions on insurance coverage were made by the appellants. The respondents simply failed to advise the appellants with due care. That failure was a breach of their duties in tort and contract, but it was not a breach of any duty of a fiduciary nature.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.