ILNews

Court: Alleged negligence didn't cause injury

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance agent because it found her alleged negligence was not a cause of injury to the plaintiffs.

At issue in Jerry and Becky French v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company and Jane Hodson, No. 18A02-0612-CV-1161, is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hodson on the Frenches' claim of negligent advice and procurement of insurance.

The Frenches decided to purchase a manufactured home for their Delaware County plot of land, and Jerry French visited his insurance agent, Hodson, to determine the new homeowner's insurance policy. The value of the home was just less than $80,000.

Hodson asked Jerry questions about the home and entered his answers into the Insurance-to-Value calculator, which estimated the cost of replacement to be approximately $173,000. Jerry signed off on this figure. Hodson never asked if Jerry's home was manufactured or stick-built, nor the purchase price, and Jerry never specified the type of policy he wanted. State Farm had different policies for manufactured and stick-built homes.

Under Coverage A of their policy, the Frenches were covered for up to $173,000 to repair or replace with similar construction. Under Coverage B, their personal property was insured, and in the event of a loss they would be awarded 75 percent of the Coverage A amount.

A fire struck the home several months after the Frenches moved in, and a claim representative inspected the loss and told the Frenches they could use up to the total amount of coverage to rebuild their home. The Frenches decided to construct a stick-built home instead of a manufactured home because they believed an electrical issue in the manufactured home caused the fire. The cost to build the new home was more than their policy limit.

The claim representative informed the Frenches the policy would only cover the purchase of a similar or exact unit to the manufactured home. State Farm offered to pay the Frenches $80,000 under the policy to purchase a replacement manufactured home; they accepted the amount and continued to build a new home. They also were paid approximately $130,000 under their Coverage B policy.

The Frenches filed suit against State Farm and Hodson, alleging State Farm breached the terms of the policy by only offering $80,000 and that Hodson negligently failed to procure insurance for the Frenches as requested. Both parties filed for summary judgment, in which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hodson, ruling that the insurance policy did cover the risk and that the Frenches actually received $70,000 more in contents payments than what they would have received with the lower dwelling limits, so Hodson cannot be held liable for negligence with respect to the policy limits.

The Court of Appeals upheld the grant of summary judgment, although it had "serious misgivings" as to whether Hodson actually exercised reasonable skill and diligence in obtaining more than $200,000 worth of coverage on a $76,000 manufactured home.

The Frenches did not suffer an injury proximately caused by Hodson's alleged negligence, and in fact received a benefit of more than $70,000 from the error. The Frenches decided to construct a stick-built home that cost more than the value of their manufactured home, so they did not rely on Hodson's conducts knowing there was a coverage dispute when they continued with the construction.

Judge Edward Najam wrote the court expressed no opinion about the ultimate resolution of the Frenches' claim for breach of contract but held that the trial court didn't error in granting summary judgment in favor of Hodson.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT