Alabama Elec. Co-Op. v. Bailey's Constr.
Citation | 950 So.2d 280 |
Decision Date | 28 July 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 1050433.,1050433. |
Parties | ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., et al. v. BAILEY'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Ronald G. Davenport and R. Austin Huffaker, Jr., of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for appellants.
E.L. McCafferty III and Clay A. Lanham of Vickers, Riis, Murray & Curran, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee.
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("AEC"), and its insurers — Wausau Insurance Company and Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. — appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Bailey's Construction Company, Inc. ("Bailey"). We affirm.
On March 2, 2000, AEC and Bailey entered into a written contract whereby Bailey agreed to remove ash and sludge from one of AEC's holding ponds. The terms of the contract specifically required Bailey to provide evidence to AEC that Bailey had procured liability insurance to cover the removal procedure. According to AEC, Bailey agreed to have AEC named as an additional insured on the liability insurance policy Bailey secured, but the contract itself does not contain that requirement. AEC points out that, on two occasions during the approximately two years before AEC and Bailey entered into the holding-pond contract, AEC had requested through letters to Bailey that, because Bailey was performing work for AEC, Bailey provide AEC evidence showing that AEC had been named as an additional insured on Bailey's then existing insurance policies. According to AEC, Bailey forwarded those requests to Bailey's insurance agent, International Assurance, Inc., who, according to AEC, sent certificates of insurance to AEC that listed AEC as an additional insured on the policies represented by those certificates.1 The parties refer to International Assurance as an independent broker. According to AEC, the representations on the certificates that AEC was an additional insured were false, because AEC had never actually been added as an additional insured on the policies by an endorsement to that effect.
On October 30, 2000, Willene McLoed, an independent contractor working for Bailey, was killed on AEC's premises while working on the holding-pond project. The executor of McLoed's estate filed a wrongful-death action against AEC. AEC contacted International Assurance and requested that it provide AEC with a certificate of insurance showing AEC as an additional insured on Bailey's then existing liability policy; QBE Insurance Company was the underwriter of the policy in effect at the time. It was subsequently determined that AEC was not an additional insured on Bailey's insurance policy with QBE. Nevertheless, according to Bailey, in response to AEC's request, International Assurance added AEC as an additional insured on a certificate of insurance without authorization from Bailey or QBE. International Assurance sent that certificate to AEC.
AEC demanded that Bailey and QBE defend and indemnify AEC in the wrongful-death action resulting from McLoed's death. Initially, QBE represented to AEC that it would defend and indemnify AEC, because AEC was listed as an additional insured on the certificate of insurance. Later, however, QBE refused to defend and indemnify AEC on the ground that AEC was never actually added to the policy as an additional insured by an endorsement to that effect.
AEC and its own insurers settled the wrongful-death action without contribution from Bailey or QBE. Subsequently, AEC and its insurers sued Bailey, QBE, and International Assurance. Bailey moved for a summary judgment on all claims against it, which the trial court granted; it certified the summary judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. AEC and its insurers appealed. The only claims at issue in this appeal are AEC and its insurers' claims against Bailey.
"The standard of review applicable to a summary judgment is the same as the standard for granting the motion . . . ." McClendon v. Mountain Top Indoor Flea Market, Inc., 601 So.2d 957, 958 (Ala.1992).
Capital Alliance Ins. Co. v. Thorough-Clean, Inc., 639 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Ala. 1994). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So.2d 337, 342 (Ala.2004).
Against Bailey, AEC and its insurers alleged misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence, and wantonness.
AEC and its insurers contend that they presented substantial evidence indicating that Bailey falsely represented to AEC that AEC was named as an additional insured on Bailey's insurance policies and that those misrepresentations induced AEC to enter into the holding-pond contract. AEC and its insurers contend that the misrepresentations were contained in the certificates of insurance sent to AEC by International Assurance, indicating that AEC was an additional insured on Bailey's then existing insurance policies.
"An insurance broker, like other brokers, is primarily the agent of the person who first employs him, and, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, he is the agent of insured as to all matters within the scope of his employment." 44 C.J.S. Insurance § 181 (1993). Bailey argues that, even assuming that Bailey can be held liable for the misrepresentations of International Assurance, AEC and its insurers have not presented substantial evidence indicating that AEC reasonably relied on those misrepresentations in awarding Bailey the holding-pond contract. Reasonable reliance is an essential element of a misrepresentation claim. See Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham, 693 So.2d 409, 421 (Ala. 1997).
In support of their misrepresentation claim, AEC and its insurers rely on two specific certificates of insurance sent by International Assurance to AEC, before AEC awarded Bailey the holding-pond contract, indicating that AEC was an additional insured on Bailey's then existing policies. Bailey points out that both certificates carried the following statement:
(Capitalization in original.) Further, while the reverse side of the first certificate of insurance relied upon by AEC and its insurers does not appear in the record, the reverse side of the second certificate, dated June 2, 1999, does. It states:
(Capitalization in original.)
In TIG Insurance Co. v. Sedgwick James of Washington, 184 F.Supp.2d 591 (S.D.Texas 2001), the client of a vendor and the client's own insurer sued an insurance broker, alleging that the broker had misrepresented on an insurance certificate that the client was an additional insured on the vendor's insurance policy. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held as a matter of law that the client could not have reasonably relied on the insurance certificate:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Morris
...in documents other than the contract between the parties, such as an online training manual.9 See also Alabama Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Bailey's Constr. Co., 950 So.2d 280 (Ala.2006) (holding that representations in a noncontractual document could not be reasonably relied upon by a plaintiff pr......
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...of insurance alone as proof of coverage as "the insurance policy is the controlling document." Ala. Elec. Coop. Inc., v. Bailey's Constr. Co., Inc. , 950 So.2d 280, 285 (Ala. 2006). "Where an entity requires another to procure insurance naming it an additional insured, that party should not......
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...of insurance alone as proof of coverage as "the insurance policy is the controlling document." Ala. Elec. Coop. Inc., v. Bailey Constr. Co., Inc., 950 So. 2d 280, 285 (Ala. 2006). "Where an entity requires another to procure insurance naming it an additional insured, that party should not r......
-
Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP.
... ... 2100245. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. Dec. 16, 2011. 159 So.3d 15 Kenneth J. Lay, Birmingham, ... ...
-
Reliance, the Bachelor: Will Experience Answer the Open Questions of Reasonable Reliance?
...that only the underlying contracts could be reasonably relied upon. In Alabama Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Bailey's Construction Co., Inc., 950 So. 2d 280 (Ala. 2006), Bailey's delivered an insurance certificate to AEC indicating that AEC was listed as an additional insured on Bailey's insurance p......