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not establish causation because Foster’s alleged misrepresentations pertained to a different insurance policy that was no longer in effect at the time of the Camp Fire.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
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
