ILNews

COA rules in negligent application process case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Addressing an issue today for the first time in state courts, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to determine whether a couple could sue their insurance broker for alleged negligence during the application process.

State courts have ruled on actions by an insured against an insurance company seeking recovery under a policy in cases such as Metropolitan Life v. Alterovitz, 214 Ind. 186, 196 14 N.E.2d 570, 574 (1938), but not in a case in which a person claims the insurance broker was negligent while filing out the application for insurance, leaving the person without any homeowner's insurance or specific coverage.

In Terence E. Brennan Jr. a/k/a Terry Brennan and Burt Insurance Co. v. Patricia and Harry Hall, No. 64A03-0811-CV-548, Terry Brennan and Burt Insurance Co. appealed the jury verdict finding them liable for negligently failing to procure insurance for the Halls.

Patricia Hall visited Brennan at his office and asked if he could get her homeowners insurance that specifically covered her dogs, including a Doberman pinscher; earthquakes; and a wood-burning stove. The insurance company Brennan selected for Hall doesn't provide insurance for Doberman pinschers; however, on the application, Brennan checked the "no" box to a question asking if the homeowner has any animals or exotic pets. Patricia, feeling rushed, signed the application without closely looking it over.

The Halls discovered they didn't have coverage for the dogs after their niece was bitten and they filed a claim with the insurance company, which was denied because the application didn't note they had a Doberman pinscher.

The Halls filed their own suit against Brennan and Burt Insurance, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud by failing to acquire adequate insurance for the couple. The jury found Brennan and the company liable based on negligent failure to procure a policy. No damages were assessed because of a pending lawsuit between the Halls and the niece.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue in Roe v. Sewell, 128 F.3d 1098 (7th Cir. 1997), in which it limited the ruling in Alterovitz to cases by an insurance applicant directly against an insurance company. Alterovitz doesn't prohibit suits by an insurance applicant against an agent who may have been negligent in the application process, wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

"We hold that if an agent is negligent in assisting a client complete an insurance application, and such negligence leads to a basis for the insurance company to deny coverage to the applicant and/or revoke the policy, the applicant may seek damages from the agent, even if the applicant signed or ratified the application after having a chance to review it," he wrote.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.

The Court of Appeals did mention that Patricia may share some of the blame for the inaccurate application and as under Roe, it may be appropriate to assess her fault in accordance with the Comparative Fault Act. Brennan and Burt Insurance failed to make such an argument before the court, wrote Judge Barnes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT