Bates v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 05 October 1992
• Citation: 614 A.2d 551
• Parties: Phyllis BATES v. Robert ANDERSON d/b/a F.A. Peabody Company.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 551

614 A.2d 551

Phyllis BATES v. Robert ANDERSON d/b/a F.A. Peabody Company.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Sept. 11, 1992.

Decided Oct. 5, 1992.

Steven J. Mogul (orally), Gross, Minsky, Mogul & Singal, Bangor, for plaintiff.

John B. Lucy (orally), Richardson & Troubh, Portland, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and RUDMAN, JJ.

GLASSMAN, Justice.

The plaintiff, Phyllis Bates, appeals, and the defendant, Robert Anderson d/b/a F.A. Peabody Company (Peabody), cross-appeals from a judgment for Peabody entered in the Superior Court (Aroostook County, Pierson, J.) notwithstanding a jury verdict in favor of Bates on her complaint against Peabody. We agree with Bates that the evidence in this case is sufficient to support the jury's verdict that Peabody had breached its contract with Bates to secure flood insurance on her home, and we vacate the judgment. Accordingly, we need not address Bates's further contention that the evidence in this case supports the jury's verdict that Peabody negligently failed to explain to her the requirements necessary for her to secure flood insurance on her home. Nor do we need to address Peabody's contention that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial based on the ground that the court erred in its instructions to the jury relating to Bates's claim of Peabody's negligence.

Although there was conflicting testimony, on the evidence submitted to it the jury rationally could find the following facts: On the recommendation of the seller from whom she had purchased a home in Wytopitlock that she secure both flood and homeowner's insurance on the property, Bates and her husband visited the office of Peabody, a general insurance agent, where she spoke to Peabody employee Lois Haggerty concerning such insurance. At the time of this interview, and on behalf of Bates, Haggerty filled out the separate application forms for flood insurance and homeowner's insurance, noting on the application forms that Bates would be billed for the premium. Haggerty did not inform Bates that flood insurance could be secured only from the federally-established National Flood Insurance Program and that, unlike an application for homeowner's insurance, the application is not signed by the homeowner but must be signed by a licensed insurance agent and must be accompanied by the prepayment of the premium. Nor did Haggerty inform Bates that Haggerty was not a licensed agent. Bates and her husband left the Peabody office with the understanding that Bates's property was covered by both flood and homeowner's insurance and in due course Bates would receive a policy evidencing such coverage and a bill for the requisite premium.

Some time later, Peabody sent Bates a "Homeowners Policy" issued by Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, together with a bill for the premium. Bates paid the required premium but did not read the policy. Thereafter...