Duty of care owed by sub-brokers

English law has yet to give a definitive answer on the question of whether a placing broker who has no contractual relationship with the assured owes a duty of care to the assured in the placement of the risk, or whether liability is borne entirely by the producing broker with whom the assured does have a contract. The tendency in the authorities has been to deny a duty of care. In BP plc v Aon Ltd [2006] Lloyd’s Rep IR 577 the point arose not in the context of a placing broker, but in the context of the sub-broker to whom the duty to declare risks to an open cover had been delegated. Colman J held that the sub-broker had a duty of care to the assured despite the absence of any contract between them, and in so deciding has opened the way to a more generalised finding that placing brokers do owe duties of care. The case also raised an important issue as to the measure of damages.