ILNews

Company not bound by defiant agent's actions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred in finding that a company was bound by its insurance agency's acts even though the agency acted against the company's wishes, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

Lupke Rice Insurance Agency sued former client Maxitrol to recover workers' compensation insurance premiums the agency paid on behalf of Maxitrol to insurance providers EBI Cos. and Royal Sun Alliance. Audits by the insurers found Maxitrol improperly classified some workers and owed additional premiums. Lupke Rice paid those premiums against the wishes of Maxitrol, which challenged the adjustment to their premiums. Lupke Rice agent Stanley Rice never told Maxitrol the company paid the premiums until after Maxitrol ended its workers' compensation insurance with Lupke Rice.

Maxitrol and Lupke Rice didn't reach an agreement on the unpaid adjustments and Lupke Rice sued Maxitrol for the nearly $64,000 in premium adjustments. The trial court found in favor of Lupke Rice, ruling Maxitrol was bound by Lupke Rice's acts, and that Maxitrol ratified the agency's payment of the adjusted premiums.

In Maxitrol Co. v. Lupke Rice Insurance Agency, Inc., No. 02A03-0905-CV-216, Maxitrol argued it's not liable for the adjusted premiums because Lupke Rice disregarded its instructions not to pay them. The Indiana Supreme Court has said that a principal is bound by the acts of a general agent if the agent acted within the ordinary and usual business scope in which it was employed, even if the agent violated private instructions of the principal. If either an innocent principal or a third party must suffer due to the betrayal of an agent's trust, then the loss should fall on the principal as the party who is most at fault because it put the agent in the position of trust.

But the rationale behind the rule doesn't apply in the instant case, wrote Senior Judge John Sharpnack.

"Here, we have a disobedient agent seeking reimbursement rather than an innocent third party seeking to enforce an agent's representations," he wrote. "Further, where a principal has instructed an agent not to do something, and the agent disobeys the principal, the agent is clearly more at fault than the principal. The rule was not intended to protect a disobedient agent."

The trial court also erred in ruling that Maxitrol ratified Lupke Rice's payments to Royal Sun Alliance. To hold a principal liable on grounds of ratification - explicit or implicit - it must be shown the principal ratified upon full knowledge of all material facts, or that he was willfully ignorant. Maxitrol didn't know Lupke Rice paid the RSA the premium adjustments and didn't learn about them until more than a year after the last payment was made.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT