Summary
recognizing special relationship could create duty to advise insured
Summary of this case from Accident Fund Ins. Co. of Am. v. Custom Mech. Constr., Inc.Opinion
No. 01A02-0906-CV-539.
February 25, 2010.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Adams County, James A. Heimann, J.
Bruce Norman Stier, Logan Stier, LLC, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellants.
Michael E. Brown, Eric D. Johnson, Kightlinger Gray, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.
OPINION
I concur in the majority opinion, but write separately to note that although an insurance agent does not have a duty to provide advice to the insured unless a special relationship exists between the two, see op. at 885-86 (citing Craven, 588 N.E.2d at 1296), I do not view every instance of an insured requesting "full coverage" to be a request for advice, however. In some instances, an insured's declaration that he wants "full coverage" could be a directive to procure specific insurance, akin to directing the agent to procure "earthquake insurance" or "flood insurance." A licensed insurance agent would then have a duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and good faith diligence to obtain the desired insurance. Morgan v. Tackitt Ins. Agency, Inc., 852 N.E.2d 994, 999 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006). If the agent is unsure what the insured means by the directive, the duty may include a duty to ask for clarification. Likewise, if the agent is unable to obtain the desired insurance, there is a duty to inform the insured of that fact. Anderson Mattress Co., Inc. v. First State Ins. Co., 617 N.E.2d 932, 939 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) ("The agent also incurs a duty to inform the principal if he is unable to procure the requested insurance.").
In this case, however, upon reviewing the entire conversation between the Myerses and Krueger, it is clear that Sandra did not have a clear idea of what "full coverage" meant and was not directing Krueger to procure specific insurance but was seeking Krueger's advice about what amount of insurance would provide full coverage for the replacement cost of the home. See Appellants' App. at 81 (Sandra's deposition testimony that Krueger "asked me how much insurance I wanted on it and I told her I didn't know. I had no clue how much insurance I needed."). On the facts of this case, I concur with the majority that Krueger had no duty to advise the Myerses about the amount of insurance they needed and the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the appellees.