Case Conclusion

An insurance agent, who takes on the obligation to secure an insurance policy for a client or customer, has a duty to secure that insurance and will be held liable, in negligence, for any damages resulting from a breach of that duty. Communications and their conduct between a customer and an agent are applicable on the question of whether the agent has lawfully procured a policy of insurance.  If the communications and/or conduct which leads the customer into the confidence that such insurance has been effected, the law will inflict upon the agent the obligation to secure the insurance. For example: if the parties have had prior business where the agent customarily has taken care of the customer's needs without consultation, then a legal duty can arise to procure the insurance, even without express and detailed orders from the customer and acceptance by the agent. In this case, the evidence viewed in the light most flattering to Plaintiffs. It shows evidence ABC assumed an obligation to procure flood insurance on the James House property.  ABC was aware of the location of the property and advised Mrs. James he would provide her with the necessary coverage. Throughout the business relationship of the parties, ABC had taken care of Mrs. James insurance needs, including placing Plaintiffs' coverage with another company when he was no longer doing business with the company which had beforehand written Plaintiffs' coverage. ABC specifically told Plaintiffs they had “all-risk” coverage, which was all they needed. Accordingly, a genuine issue of fact exists and they believe the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Defendants on this basis. The Defendants argue, that the Plaintiffs show that they are contributory negligent and, thus, barred from any recovery because they failed to read the ABC Policy which specifically excluded any coverage for a person who signs a contract generally has a duty to read it and become knowledgeable of its contents and is...