Agent for Insurer Only an Order Taker
Barry Zalma
Aug 29, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gvFNM6tk and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g5Ndeg_Q and at https://lnkd.in/g96rkKES and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4600 posts.
Steven and Nancy Taylor appealed the trial court’s granting defendant Lake Michigan Insurance Company’s motion for summary disposition and dismissing their case and the court’s denial of their motion for reconsideration. In Steven G S Taylor and Nancy Taylor v. Lake Michigan Insurance Company, No. 360974, Court of Appeals of Michigan (August 24, 2023) the plaintiffs alleged the agent should have required higher policy limits for the replacement of their log home.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs purchased property with a log home in Bellaire, Michigan during September 2015 for $408,000. They contacted defendant, an independent insurance agency with whom they previously did business, to assist them in securing homeowner’s insurance. Plaintiffs told defendant’s representative, Lisa Stanard, that they believed the property likely would hold a greater value in the future because they purchased it through a “distressed sale.” Stanard obtained information from Steven regarding the nature of the house and input and processed that information to generate a rate comparison and replacement cost estimate which she then uploaded into Auto-Owners Insurance Company’s (Auto-Owners) computer system.
Auto-Owners’ had the property inspected and concluded that house replacement cost estimate to $709,734. Auto-Owners issued plaintiffs a homeowner’s insurance policy which they accepted without objection. The policy contained an increased cost endorsement (ICE) that provided for payment to plaintiffs of an additional 25% ($175,250) if certain conditions were met.
Plaintiffs’ house burned and they suffered a total loss. Plaintiffs submitted a claim to Auto-Owners and a proof of loss which stated that plaintiffs estimated among other things the building damage amount at $1,282,500 and acknowledged the policy limit of $876,250 the ICE amount. Auto-Owners advised the plaintiffs that they paid the full policy limit including the ICE addition to the limits of $876,250.
Unsatisfied with Auto-Owners’ settlement of their claim, plaintiffs sued defendant essentially alleging that defendant owed them a duty to ensure the adequacy of their homeowner’s insurance policy to enable them to rebuild their house.
ANALYSIS
An insurance policy constitutes a contractual agreement between the insurer and the insured. Michigan law has long presumed that one who has signed a written contract knows the nature of the instrument and understands its contents. The rule of reasonable expectations clearly has no application to unambiguous contracts. An alleged “reasonable expectation” cannot supersede the clear language of a contract
Under common law an insurance agent whose principal is the insurance company owes no duty to advise a potential insured about any coverage.
The general rule of no duty only changes when (1) the agent misrepresents the nature or extent of the coverage offered or provided, (2) an ambiguous request is made that requires a clarification, (3) an inquiry is made that may require advice and the agent, though he need not, gives advice that is inaccurate, or (4) the agent assumes an additional duty by either express agreement with or promise to the insured.
Defendant is an independent insurance agency that serves as an agent of several insurance carriers and assists its clients in procuring insurance from those carriers. As such, defendant owed plaintiffs a duty to strictly follow their instructions. The record reflects that Auto-Owners sent a third-party inspector to plaintiffs’ Bellaire property to inspect and present Auto-Owners with the inspection report from which Auto-Owners adjusted upward the estimated house replacement cost.
No evidence establishes that anyone affiliated with defendant agreed or promised plaintiffs to assess the adequacy of the policy limits set by and offered by Auto-Owners. The record reveals that Steven knew the terms of the policy before accepting Auto-Owners’ offer.
The trial court properly determined that no genuine issue of material fact precluded granting summary disposition for defendant. The trial court correctly determined that defendant did not owe plaintiffs a duty to assess and ensure the adequacy of the homeowner’s insurance coverage that plaintiffs obtained from Auto-Owners and plaintiffs failed to establish a special relationship that gave rise to a duty to do so.
ZALMA OPINION
An insurance agent transacts insurance on behalf of the insurer. As such the insurer’s agent is an order taker who presents the order to its principal, the insurer. The agent owes no obligation to a potential insured to determine the appropriate replacement value of the dwelling. It, based on information from its principal, set a policy limit suggested by the insurer which the insured accepted and obtained the full policy limit when the house burned. Regardless, they wanted more and sued.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Subscribe to substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
BACKGROUND
See the video at https://rumble.com/v79dts2-crime-doesnt-pay.html and at https://youtu.be/dw0f4goCbxA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Plaintiff:
Andrew J. Mitchell, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se sued Pandit Law Firm, LLC, on behalf of a corporation that was controlled by Mitchell who had operated Mitchell Adjusting International LLC (MAI), a Texas limited liability company.
According to the US Attorney:
A Texas man (Mitchell) acting as an insurance adjuster who cheated an Albany church out of millions of dollars paid out by its insurance company to repair its facilities heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018 was sentenced to serve more than 19 years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4 million in restitution to victims in several states.
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, 46, of Houston, Texas, was sentenced to serve 235 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $2,895,903.01 in restitution to the Brotherhood ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
