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

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT