Insurance Agent Has No Obligation to Investigate an Insured’s Coverage Needs
Post 4987
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gcrukZem, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g3VMWphi and at https://lnkd.in/gWSDQaQH, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Plaintiff Liza Sims’ mother owned a house in Magalia, California, that was insured under a policy issued to her by Farmers Insurance. Before the Camp Fire, Sims lived alone in her mother’s house and operated a cosmetic tattoo business there. After the house was destroyed by a wildfire called the Camp Fire in 2018. The insurance company paid Sims’ mother the limits available under her policy but denied Sims’ claim for the loss of her personal and business property. Sims sued Farmers Group, Inc. (Farmers) and insurance agent Dawn Foster (Foster or agent) (collectively, defendants) for negligent misrepresentation and professional negligence.
In Liza Sims v. Farmers Group, Inc., et al., C097755, California Court of Appeals (January 24, 2025) Plaintiff attempted to get coverage for the destruction of business property from a homeowners policy the excluded such coverage.
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that Sims’ claims were legally insufficient because she could not show harm from the agent’s alleged misrepresentations and could not prove the defendants owed or breached any duty of care.
Appeal
Sims appealed, arguing that the court erred. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Issues & Conclusions
Sims’ claims were based on alleged representations by Foster about the insurance coverage on the property.
The trial court concluded that Sims could not establish causation because Foster’s alleged misrepresentations pertained to a different insurance policy that was no longer in effect at the time of the Camp Fire.
Sims’ evidence was insufficient to create a triable issue of material fact.
The trial court also ruled that Sims could not establish Foster owed or breached a duty of care to Sims because the duties of an insurance agent run only to the client, and Sims was not Foster’s client.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s findings and affirmed the judgment.
Analysis
Negligent misrepresentation is a species of the tort of deceit. To prove negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must show (1) a misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) made without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by the party to whom it was directed, and (5) resulting damage.
Sims alleged that she had two in-person conversations with Foster, the agent, in 2013 and 2014 where she was led to believe her business property was covered. The trial court concluded that Sims could not establish the elements of causation (justifiable reliance and resulting damage) because Foster’s alleged misrepresentations pertain to coverage under an earlier homeowners’ insurance policy, which was replaced by the landlord policy in effect at the time of the fire, more than a year before the Camp Fire that damaged the house.
Disposition:
The judgment was affirmed, and the defendants were awarded their costs on appeal.
The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants because Sims’ claims were legally insufficient because Sims could not show harm from the agent’s alleged misrepresentations and could not prove the defendants owed or breached any duty of care.
In her deposition testimony and discovery responses, Sims admitted facts that directly contradicted the statements in her declaration in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
Ordinarily, an insurance agent assumes only those duties normally found in any agency relationship. This includes the obligation to use reasonable care, diligence, and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by an insured. However, an insurance agent generally does not have a duty to investigate a customer’s coverage needs, to procure coverage to meet those needs, or to point out the advantages of additional or different insurance coverage.
The trial court properly ruled that because the underlying claims against Foster failed as a matter of law there could be no case against Farmers.
The judgment was affirmed and the defendants were allowed to recover their costs on appeal.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance agents who do not take on the position of a fiduciary are basically order takers and are only obligated to obtain the insurance ordered. The fact that the agent may have told the plaintiff that her business property was covered by one policy – whether true or not – was not a misrepresentation about a subsequent policy totally different from the one in effect at the time of the fire. People really must read the policy before buying it and before making a claim or filing suit. The court did and the Plaintiff lost.
(c) 2025 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 my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
