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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT