Aesoph v. Kusser
| Decision Date | 14 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 17960,17960 |
| Citation | 498 N.W.2d 654 |
| Parties | Terry AESOPH and Steve Aesoph, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Richard KUSSER, d/b/a Kusser Insurance Agency and North Central Crop Insurance, Inc., Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Curt R. Ewinger, Rice and Ewinger, Aberdeen, for plaintiffs and appellants.
James C. Robbennolt, Olinger, Lovald, Robbennolt & McCahren, Pierre, for defendants and appellees.
Terry Aesoph (hereinafter "Terry") and Steve Aesoph (hereinafter "Steve") appeal a trial court order dismissing their action for negligent misrepresentation against Richard Kusser, d/b/a Kusser Insurance Agency (hereinafter "Kusser") and North Central Crop Insurance, Inc. We reverse and remand.
Kusser is an insurance agent who writes crop insurance policies for farmers. Terry testified that he contacted Kusser about procuring federal crop insurance and that Kusser told him they were not eligible for federal crop insurance because they were not participating in the federal farm program. In fact, there was no such requirement for eligibility for federal crop insurance. The only requirement was that the applicant had filed a Form 1026 which certified compliance with the Sodbuster/Swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. There was undisputed testimony that both Terry and Steve were in compliance with those Sodbuster/Swampbuster provisions and would have been eligible for federal crop insurance if they filed a Form 1026. Terry and Steve testified that they relied on Kusser's answer and as a result did not make any other efforts to obtain federal crop insurance. Kusser testified that he told Terry and Steve they were eligible and they only had to file a form. Unfortunately, Terry and Steve each had a total crop failure in 1988. 1
Although there were conflicts between the testimony of Terry and Steve and Kusser, the trial court did not resolve those factual conflicts. Instead, the trial court held that no action for negligent misrepresentation could lie against Kusser because there was no contractual relationship between him and Terry or Steve.
Did Kusser have a duty to exercise care when answering questions about the Aesoph's eligibility for federal crop protection?
It is a question of law whether such a "duty" existed. See Trammell v. Prairie States Ins. Co., 473 N.W.2d 460 (S.D.1991). The issue is straightforward, but is made to look more complicated because both parties cite to cases involving other types of negligence actions. It is important to remember that this case only involves a claim of negligent misrepresentation.
South Dakota was one of the first states to recognize negligent misrepresentation as a cause of action. See Moore v. Kluthe & Lane Ins. Agency, Inc., 89 S.D. 419, 234 N.W.2d 260 (1975) (discussing Boos v. Claude, 69 S.D. 254, 9 N.W.2d 262 (1943)). We have consistently said the requirements to prove negligent misrepresentation are:
there must be knowledge, or its equivalent, that the information is desired for a serious purpose; that he to whom it is given intends to rely and act upon it; that, if false or erroneous, he will because of it be injured in person or property. Finally, the relationship of the parties, arising out of contract or otherwise, must be such that in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information, and the other giving the information owes a duty to give it with care. (emphasis added).
Moore, 234 N.W.2d at 264 (quoting Boos, 69 S.D. at 260, 9 N.W.2d at 264). Moore involved an insured who was claiming his insurance agent had represented that an insurance policy covered flood damage. This Court held that because of the relationship between the insured and the insurance agent, the insurance agent had a duty to exercise care when giving information. "Our court has recognized the right of an insured to rely on the superior knowledge of the agent respecting insurance matters." Moore, 234 N.W.2d at 265 (citing Craig v. National Farmers Union Automobile & Cas. Co., 76 S.D. 349, 78 N.W.2d 464 (1956)). We went on to quote approvingly from a Minnesota case which held:
The disparity of the parties must also be borne in mind. Ordinary men are not usually acquainted with all the intricacies of insurance contracts, while the insurer is presumed to be an expert on the subject; and it is a matter of common knowledge that the insured are accustomed to rely largely on the insurer for information as to their rights and liabilities.
Moore, 234 N.W.2d at 265 (quoting Colby v. Life Indemnity & Inv. Co., 57 Minn. 510, 59 N.W. 539 (1894)).
The issue before the Court in this case is slightly different than that presented in Moore. Here, Steve and Terry were not yet insureds of Kusser. They merely asked him if they could purchase federal crop insurance. They claim he said they were not eligible. Here, the trial judge never resolved the conflicts in the testimony about exactly what Kusser told the Aesophs. The trial court resolved the case on purely legal grounds by holding that no action for negligent misrepresentation could lie, because Kusser had no duty to exercise care in answering their questions since there was no contractual relationship between Steve and Terry and Kusser. 2
We hold that the trial court was incorrect when it held, as a matter of law, that there had to be privity or a contract between the Aesophs and Kusser in order for a negligent misrepresentation action to lie. This Court has never imposed such a privity requirement. Instead, we have stated that "the relationship of the parties, arising out of contract or otherwise, must be such that in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information, and the other giving the information to give it with care." Littau v. Midwest Commodities, Inc., 316 N.W.2d 639, 644 (S.D.1982) (emphasis added). 3 See generally, Block v. Neal, 460 U.S. 289, 103 S.Ct. 1089, 75 L.Ed.2d 67 (1983).
The evidence before the trial court shows the eligibility requirements for federal crop programs are complex. The settled record contains Section I (General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitts v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co.
...and the party to whom the misrepresentation was made is not required to maintain an action against an insurance agent. Aesoph v. Kusser, 498 N.W.2d 654, 656–57 (S.D.1993). Instead, such a duty arises out of “the relationship of the parties, arising out of contract or otherwise, must be such......
-
Meyer v. National Farmers Union Prop. and Cas. Co.
...lender to recover costs advanced for the planting of the crop. Thus, this claim is distinguishable from the claims made in Aesoph v. Kusser, 498 N.W.2d 654 (S.D.1993) where the representations were made to farmers who had specifically inquired about their eligibility for crop Douglas Meyer ......
-
Verschoor v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...for which they were indeed eligible, the court recognized their claims, notwithstanding the absence of privity. Aesoph v. Kusser, 498 N.W.2d 654, 656-57 (S.D.1993). Discounting the need for a formal relationship, the South Dakota Supreme Court held, rather, that the relationship of the "mus......
-
Fisher v. Kahler
...a buyer a duty to act in the buyer's best interest." 604 N.E.2d 607, 611 (1992). 2. See Meyer, 1997 SD 21, 559 N.W.2d 251; Aesoph v. Kusser, 498 N.W.2d 654 (S.D.1993); Peterson v. Rogers, 347 N.W.2d 580 (S.D. 1984); Littau v. Midwest Commodities, Inc., 316 N.W.2d 639 3. It is also for the f......