Bulger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1995 |
| Citation | 658 So.2d 425 |
| Parties | Maudine BULGER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. 1931775. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Clifford W. Cleveland of Cleveland & Colley, P.C., Prattville, for appellant.
Thomas A. Woodall and Jeff W. Parmer of Woodall & Maddox, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Maudine Bulger was involved in an automobile accident with Monica Larue, who was insured by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). Soon thereafter, Bulger sued State Farm, alleging that, in its settlement negotiations with her, State Farm had committed fraud by failing to inform her that she could receive the costs of a rental car under Larue's liability policy. 1 The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Bulger appeals.
The dispositive issue is whether State Farm owed Bulger a duty to inform her of rental car benefits she could have obtained under Larue's State Farm liability policy.
Shortly after the accident, a State Farm claims specialist, Barry Felker, met with Bulger, offering her a settlement for the value of her car. State Farm had determined Bulger's car to be a total loss because of damage from the accident. Bulger indicated to Felker that she wanted to think about the offer before accepting it. In this conversation, Bulger did not ask Felker whether State Farm would pay for the costs of a rental car. Felker later telephoned Bulger to ask whether she had decided to accept State Farm's offer, but Bulger was still unsure. Again, Bulger did not ask Felker about the payment of rental car costs. Bulger's attorney then contacted Felker; the attorney refused another offer by State Farm, and this action followed.
Bulger, while admitting that she never inquired about payment for rental car costs, contends that State Farm had a duty to disclose the rental car benefits under Larue's liability policy.
Ordinarily, silence does not amount to fraud unless the silent party has a duty to disclose information. This Court has often ruled that there is no duty to disclose facts when information is not requested. King v. National Foundation Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 502 (Ala.1989); Keeler v. Chastang, 472 So.2d 1031 (Ala.1985); Hardy v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 585 So.2d 29 (Ala.1991). However, a duty to disclose may arise from a confidential relationship between the parties or from particular circumstances that give rise to an obligation to communicate. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-102; McCausland v. Tide-Mayflower Moving & Storage, 499 So.2d 1378 (Ala.1986); see also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Owen, 1961950.
...Ins. Co. v. Parham, 693 So.2d 409 (Ala.1997); Jewell v. Seaboard Industrial, Inc., 667 So.2d 653 (Ala.1995); Bulger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 658 So.2d 425 (Ala.1995). Any analysis of a fraudulent-suppression claim must begin by asking the fundamental question whether the parties, ......
-
Hare v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
...244 So. 3d 896, 931 (Ala. 2017) (citing Mason v. Chrysler Corp., 653 So. 2d 951, 954 - 55 (Ala. 1995)); Bulger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 658 So. 2d 425, 426 (Ala. 1995). However, "the primary factor to be considered when determining whether a duty to disclose exists is the nature o......
-
Barnett v. Funding Plus of America, Inc.
...has a duty to disclose that fact. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Owen, 729 So.2d 834, 837 (Ala.1998); Bulger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 658 So.2d 425, 426 (Ala.1995); Hardy v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 585 So.2d 29, 32 (Ala. 1991). Further, "[t]his Court has often rule......
-
MILITARY INS. SPEC. INC. v. Life Ins. Co. of Ga.
...of a duty to disclose is not fraudulent. Jewell v. Seaboard Industrial, Inc., 667 So.2d 653 (Ala.1995); Bulger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 658 So.2d 425 (Ala. 1995). The existence of a duty to disclose is a question of law to be decided by the trial court. Owen, 729 So.2d at 8......