Babbs v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 83-358-A
| Citation | 507 A.2d 1347 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-358-A,83-358-A |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rachel BABBS v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Fleet National Bank. ppeal. |
This is a civil action brought by the plaintiff, Rachel Babbs, against the defendants, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (John Hancock) and Fleet National Bank (Fleet), seeking to recover proceeds from a mortgage-insurance contract, and restraining defendant Fleet from requiring further payments from the plaintiff as well as foreclosure on the mortgage.
The defendant Fleet filed a motion for summary judgment. While the trial justice was considering defendant Fleet's motion, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint. The trial justice denied plaintiff's motion to amend and instead granted Fleet's motion for summary judgment. Thereupon, the trial justice entered judgment for defendant Fleet pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
The pertinent facts are as follows. The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Providence County Superior Court that alleged that on June 25, 1982, plaintiff and her husband, Levert Babbs, executed a promissory note to Fleet in the amount of $15,000, payment of which was secured by a mortgage on certain real estate owned by the Babbs.
The plaintiff alleged that on or about July 6, 1982, she and her husband executed an application form for mortgage life insurance and forwarded it to Fleet, which in turn forwarded it to John Hancock. The plaintiff further stated in her complaint that she and Mr. Babbs made two additional premium payments to Fleet, each in the sum of $27, on August 1, 1982, and September 1, 1982.
The plaintiff alleges that her husband's mortgage-insurance application was denied on August 5, 1982 and that on or about that date Fleet was notified that the application for insurance coverage had been denied. However, plaintiff claims that Fleet failed to notify her and her husband that insurance coverage had been denied.
Subsequent to her husband's death, plaintiff filed a claim for benefits. On September 29, 1982, Fleet notified plaintiff that her application had been rejected. On the same day, John Hancock telephoned plaintiff and informed her that the company was denying her claim.
The plaintiff claims that Fleet failed to procure mortgage-lifeinsurance coverage after she and her husband had completely performed their contractual obligations, and that once Fleet had been informed of the denial of the credit life-insurance application, it negligently failed to inform plaintiff and her husband, thereby preventing them from obtaining insurance coverage elsewhere.
In response to the aforementioned allegations, Fleet asserted that it was not acting as an agent for John Hancock and therefore had no obligation to inform plaintiff of the insurance-coverage denial. Fleet states that the tendered premium payments were placed in an escrow account to be applied in the event that John Hancock accepted the application. Further, Fleet asserted that its employees made no representations to bind insurance coverage for plaintiff and her husband. Consequently, Fleet's position is that it had no contractual obligation to bind or procure credit life insurance for the Babbs, and, moreover, that the express terms of the credit-life-insurance application and the truth-in-lending disclosure form clearly indicated that no duty arose merely from Fleet's taking the insurance application. Fleet tendered to plaintiff all prepaid premiums. Mrs. Babbs then brought this action.
Meanwhile, on April 8, 1983, prior to completion of discovery, Fleet moved for summary judgment. After hearing, the trial justice granted Fleet's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cady v. IMC Mortgage Co., Inc., C.A. 98-5400
...a showing of extreme prejudice." Wachsberger v. Pepper, 583 A.2d 77, 78 (R.I. 1990) (quoting Babbs v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 507 A.2d 1347, 1349 (R.I. 1986)); Inleasing Corp. v. Jessup, 475 A.2d 989, 993 (R.I. 1984). "The burden rests on the party opposing the motion to show it ......
-
Cady v. IMC Mortgage Co., Inc.
...a showing of extreme prejudice." Wachsberger v. Pepper, 583 A.2d 77, 78 (R.I. 1990) (quoting Babbs v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 507 A.2d 1347, 1349 (R.I. 1986)); Inleasing Corp. v. Jessup, 475 A.2d 989, 993 (R.I. 1984). "The burden rests on the party opposing the motion to show it ......
-
Cady v. IMC Mortgage Co., Inc., C.A. 98-5400
...a showing of extreme prejudice." Wachsberger v. Pepper, 583 A.2d 77, 78 (R.I. 1990) (quoting Babbs v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 507 A.2d 1347, 1349 (R.I. 1986)); Inleasing Corp. v. Jessup, 475 A.2d 989, 993 (R.I. 1984). "The burden rests on the party opposing the motion to show it ......
-
Cady v. IMC Mortgage Co., Inc.
... ... 1990) (quoting ... Babbs v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. , 507 A.2d ... ...