Akpan v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, Inc.
Decision Date | 12 January 2007 |
Docket Number | 2050420. |
Citation | 961 So.2d 865 |
Parties | Job J. AKPAN and Dalphne D. Akpan v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, INC., David M. Mangrum, GAB Robbins, Inc., and Matthew Jackson. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Barry W. Walker, Birmingham, for appellants.
Ruth Ann Hall of Spurrier, Rice & Hall, Huntsville, for appellees Farmers Insurance Exchange, Inc., and David M. Mangrum.
James S. Lloyd, W. Hill Sewell, and Karen D. Farley of Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees GAB Robbins, Inc., and Matthew Jackson.
Job J. Akpan and Dalphne D. Akpan (collectively, "the Akpans") appeal from summary judgments entered in favor of Farmers Insurance Exchange, Inc. ("Farmers"), David M. Mangrum, GAB Robbins, Inc., and Matthew Jackson by the Madison Circuit Court. We affirm.
In 2001, the Akpans owned a convenience store. They obtained a policy of insurance from Farmers that insured, among other things, the real and personal property associated with their store against loss and damage. The coverage period began on March 13, 2001, and lasted until October 6, 2001.
The Akpans suffered losses because of burglary and vandalism at their store on three separate occasions: July 17, 2001; July 31, 2001; and August 1, 2001. The Akpans made claims for these losses under the insurance policy shortly after the losses occurred. At the time they made their claims, Farmers had not yet provided to the Akpans a copy of their insurance policy. Farmers did, however, provide to the Akpans a copy of their insurance policy in September 2001.1
Farmers contracted with GAB Robbins, Inc. ("Robbins"), to investigate and adjust the Akpans' claims. Matthew Jackson was the Robbins employee assigned the task of conducting the investigation. Although Farmers contracted with Robbins to investigate and adjust the Akpans' claims, Farmers maintained the right to determine coverage under the policy.
The policy of insurance provided several conditions to the Akpans' recovery for their losses. One of those conditions was that the Akpans submit to an examination under oath if requested by Farmers. In this regard, the policy stated:
E. LOSS CONDITIONS
The following conditions apply in addition to the Common Policy Conditions and the Commercial Property Conditions.
On five separate occasions in the latter half of 2002, Farmers, through an attorney, scheduled the Akpans to appear for examinations under oath.2 The Akpans failed to appear for their examinations on any of these occasions, despite the fact that Farmers' attorney, at least initially, coordinated the dates for the examinations with the Akpans' attorney. The Akpans never submitted to an examination under oath as Farmers had requested.
The Akpans filed the present action on March 31, 2005, against Farmers, Mangrum (the Farmers insurance agent who sold the policy to the Akpans), Robbins, and Jackson (collectively, "the defendants"). The Akpans alleged that the defendants had breached the insurance contract, had acted in bad faith with regard to the handling and disposition of the Akpans' claims, had committed professional negligence in failing to obtain full and adequate insurance for the Akpans and in failing to properly investigate and resolve the Akpans' claims, and had committed fraud by failing to disclose material information to the Akpans.
On May 6, 2005, Farmers and Mangrum filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. They asserted that the Akpans were not entitled to recover under the insurance contract because the Akpans had failed to submit to the examinations under oath that Farmers had sought from them, thus violating a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. They supported their motion with an affidavit from the attorney who had attempted to schedule the Akpans' examinations under oath on Farmers's behalf and with a copy of the insurance policy. On the same day, Farmers and Mangrum filed a motion for a protective order allowing them to not respond to the discovery requests that the Akpans had served on them until the court ruled on the motion to dismiss.
On May 17, 2005, the Akpans filed a response to Farmers's and Mangrum's motion to dismiss. The Akpans argued that, because they were not provided with a copy of their insurance policy before they made claims on the policy, "they had no idea what the duties and responsibilities were" under the policy. They asserted that Farmers failed to provide them with a copy of their policy in a timely manner in violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 27-14-19(a). That statute provides that "every policy shall be mailed or delivered to the insured or to the person entitled thereto within a reasonable period of time after its issuance. . . ."
The Akpans also filed on May 17, 2005, an opposition to the motion for protective order and a motion to compel discovery. They argued that Alabama law provides a permissive discovery standard with regard to fraud and bad-faith claims, and that they were in need of the claims file Farmers had generated regarding the Akpans' claims on the insurance policy.
On May 26, 2005, the Akpans submitted an affidavit, executed by Job Akpan, which stated in pertinent part:
On June 14, 2005, following oral argument on Farmers's and Mangrum's motion to dismiss, the Akpans filed a second response to that motion. They argued that before an insurer can avoid coverage because of its insured's failure to cooperate in the investigations of the insured's claims under the insurance policy, the failure to cooperate must be material and substantial, and the failure must result in prejudice to the insurer. The Akpans argued that Farmers had not shown that their refusal to submit to examinations under oath constituted material and substantial failures of cooperation, nor had it shown that it had been prejudiced by the Akpans' actions. The Akpans also contended that whether an insured has breached the duty to cooperate is usually a question of fact.
On September 27, 2005, the trial court granted Farmers's and Mangrum's motion and entered a judgment in their favor. The order granting the motion stated, in pertinent part:
The Akpans filed a motion to reconsider on October 5, 2005.
On October 11, 2005, Robbins and Jackson filed a motion for a summary judgment. They argued that they could not be held liable for breach of contract or bad faith, the first two counts in the Akpans' complaint, because they were not parties to the insurance contract between the Akpans and Farmers. As to the Akpans' fraud count, Robbins and Jackson argued that the Akpans "failed to meet any of the elements required to prevail on a fraud claim," which Robbins and Jackson correctly noted to be a false statement of a material fact upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied and was thereby damaged. Robbins and Jackson also argued that the Akpans had failed to plead their fraud count with the requisite specificity. As to the Akpans' professional-negligence count, Robbins...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...on, or exclusion from, coverage until delivery of the policy ....") (citing Clarke , 728 So.2d 135 ); Akpan v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Inc. , 961 So.2d 865, 871 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (plaintiffs did not establish prejudice because they received the policy more than ten months before the insurer......
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...on, or exclusion from, coverage until delivery of the policy . . . .") (citing Clarke, 728 So.2d 135); Akpan v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Inc., 961 So. 2d 865, 871 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (plaintiffs did not establish prejudice because they received the policy more than ten months before the insure......
-
Trinity Baptist Church v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Servs., LLC
...the opportunity to act unscrupulously.2004 OK 2, ¶ 13, 87 P.3d 559 (emphasis added).7 See, e.g., Akpan v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, Inc., 961 So.2d 865 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (determining independent adjuster hired by insurer owed no duty to insureds and could not be held liable on negligence theo......
-
Keodalah v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...owes a duty only to the insurance company that hired it" and owes no common law duty to the insured. Akpan v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Inc ., 961 So. 2d 865, 873 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). These courts have generally taken the view that an insurer’s duty of good faith is derived from its "unique rel......
-
Evaluating the Relationship Between Independent Insurance Adjusters and Insureds: the Case Against Imposing an Independent Duty of Care
...(Fla. 2012). 58. See Am. Golf Corp. v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 683, 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). 59. Apkin v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 961 So. 2d 865 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007); Meineke v. GAB Bus. Servs., Inc., 991 P.2d 267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999); Icasiano v. Allstate Ins. Co., 103 F. Supp. 2d ......