Morgan v. Dickelman Ins. Agency, Inc.
| Citation | 202 N.E.3d 454 |
| Decision Date | 30 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-PL-892 |
| Parties | Ronald MORGAN and Cheryl Morgan, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. DICKELMAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Dickelman Insurance, Inc., Jason Dickelman, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Appellees-Defendants |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Attorneys for Appellants: Brian A. Karle, Michael J. Stapleton, Ball Eggleston, PC, Lafayette, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellees: Eric C. McNamar, Michael R. Giordano, Lewis Wagner, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Ronald Morgan and Cheryl Morgan appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dickelman Insurance Agency, Inc., Dickelman Insurance, Inc., Jason Dickelman, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (collectively Defendants) on the Morgans’ complaint for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, and fraud. As for their breach of contract claim, they assert that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether an oral modification of their insurance policy to increase their dwelling coverage limit was formed. We find this argument irrelevant because the Morgans subsequently received and accepted easy-to-read renewal certificates clearly indicating the amount of their coverage. With respect to the remaining claims, they contend that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether they reasonably relied on an insurance agent's alleged representations. Based on the easy-to-read, unambiguous renewal certificates, we conclude that as a matter of law, their reliance is unjustified. Accordingly, we affirm.
[2] The facts most favorable to the Morgans as the nonmovants show that in 2007, they purchased a log home in Lafayette. In 2008, they acquired homeowners insurance with State Farm through an agency owned by Chantal Breedlove. The Morgans determined the amount of dwelling coverage for their home through the recommendation of the insurance agent because Cheryl "always go[es] by the experts." Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 at 126. The Morgans paid insurance premiums through escrow funds held by their mortgage company. Each year, State Farm mailed the Morgans "renewal notices," but Cheryl did not recall looking at the notices because "when you talk to an agent, I expect our conversation to be followed through on." Id. 126-27.
[3] In 2011, Dickelman Insurance "took over" Breedlove's agency and the administration of the Morgans’ insurance policy. Id. at 58. Dickelman contacted the Morgans several times between 2011 and 2014 "to sit down and meet" with him, but they did not respond, and they never met with Dickelman to discuss their insurance coverage. Id . In 2012, State Farm mailed a two-page renewal certificate to the Morgans for the policy period April 4, 2012, to April 4, 2013, as well as a homeowners available coverage notice. Id. at 79, 81. The first page of the renewal certificate indicated that their policy provided dwelling coverage of up to $291,500. Id. at 79. The Morgans did not read the renewal certificate, and Cheryl put the envelope in a file without opening it. Id. at 128.
[4] In May 2012, Cheryl read that log homes could have higher replacement costs than ordinary houses and became concerned that their home might be underinsured. Cheryl called Dickelman Insurance and spoke with a female insurance representative. Id. at 142. Cheryl initially requested a $250,000 increase in dwelling coverage, but the representative told her "that's way too much, way too much." Id. After a discussion, Cheryl "finally said" that she wanted to increase the coverage by "[$]150,000 on the structure." Id. Cheryl "agreed to pay a higher insurance premium in exchange for $150,000 of additional fire and casualty coverage" on the home. Id. at 159. There is no evidence in the record as to the amount of the higher premium. Cheryl "provided [her] debit card information, including the full account number, to the female representative during the May 2012 phone call ... to process the payment for the additional coverage." Id. Cheryl was "informed the transaction was completed and that the additional coverage was obtained and applied to [their] homeowner's policy." Id. Following this phone call, Cheryl believed that the Morgans had dwelling coverage of approximately $450,000. Id. at 130, 159. Cheryl never confirmed with Dickelman's office whether the requested additional coverage had been procured. Id. at 127.
[5] In 2013, 2014, and 2015, State Farm mailed two-page renewal certificates identical in form to the previous renewal certificates as well as homeowners available coverage notices to the Morgans. The first page of the 2013 renewal notice showed that for the policy period April 4, 2013, to April 4, 2014, the Morgans’ dwelling coverage limit was $297,100. Id. at 86. In 2014, the renewal certificate showed a dwelling coverage limit of $300,700. Id. at 93. In 2015, the renewal certificate showed a dwelling coverage limit of $313,100. Id. at 110. The renewal notices also specified the annual premium and that it was to be paid by the mortgagee. Although the renewal notices are two pages, the second pages are largely blank, providing the name of the mortgagee and a one-paragraph advisement regarding the customer's responsibility to choose coverage and limits. Id. at 87, 94, 111. Cheryl filed all the envelopes from State Farm without opening them. Id. at 128, 134.
[6] On September 20, 2015, the Morgans submitted a claim to State Farm for extensive water damage to their home with a repair estimate of $712,000 to $800,000. Id. at 53. Cheryl learned that the dwelling coverage limit had not been increased by $150,000, and in late September or early October, she went to Dickelman Insurance to ask "how this could have happened." Id. at 144. According to Cheryl, "the girl pulled it up and showed [Cheryl] on the screen," and all four employees said, Id. Dickelman "came out" and told her that Id. at 146. Ultimately, State Farm paid the Morgans $330,034.88 for the claim, which represented their dwelling coverage limit for the policy period April 4, 2015, to April 4, 2016, plus inflation guard protection and the cost of debris removal.
[7] On September 20, 2017, the Morgans filed a complaint against Defendants alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, and fraud. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims, and the Morgans filed a response. After a hearing, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment for Defendants on all of the Morgans’ claims. The Morgans filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. This appeal ensued.
[8] We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court. Hughley v. State , 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings and designated evidence reveal that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C) ; Brill v. Regent Commc'ns, Inc. , 12 N.E.3d 299, 308-09 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. "A fact is material if its resolution would affect the outcome of the case, and an issue is genuine if a trier of fact is required to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable inferences." Williams v. Tharp , 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "The initial burden is on the summary-judgment movant to ‘demonstrate [ ] the absence of any genuine issue of fact as to a determinative issue,’ at which point the burden shifts to the non-movant to ‘come forward with contrary evidence’ showing an issue for the trier of fact." Hughley , 15 N.E.3d at 1003 (quoting Williams , 914 N.E.2d at 761-62 ).1
[9] In reviewing summary judgment rulings, we consider only the evidentiary matter that the parties have specifically designated to the trial court. Reed v. Reid , 980 N.E.2d 277, 285 (Ind. 2012). In determining whether issues of material fact exist, we do not reweigh the evidence. Daisy v. Roach , 811 N.E.2d 862, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Rather, "[w]e construe all factual inferences in the non-moving party's favor and resolve all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party." Reed , 980 N.E.2d at 285. "Indiana consciously errs on the side of letting marginal cases proceed to trial on the merits, rather than risk short-circuiting meritorious claims." Hughley , 15 N.E.3d at 1004. "Although the non-moving party has the burden on appeal of persuading us that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous, we carefully assess the trial court's decision to ensure that he was not improperly denied his day in court." Id. at 1003. Finally, "we may affirm the entry of summary judgment on any grounds supported by the designated evidentiary materials." Hulse v. Ind. State Fair Bd. , 94 N.E.3d 726, 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Section 1 – Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Morgans’ breach of contract claim.
[10] In their complaint, the Morgans alleged that Defendants breached an oral agreement to increase their dwelling coverage by $150,000. In support of their summary judgment motion on the breach of contract claim, Defendants designated evidence that established that State Farm paid the policy coverage limit on the Morgans’ claim, that the dwelling coverage limit never increased by $150,000, and that the Morgans never paid an increased premium for a nearly fifty-percent increase in coverage....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. First Merchants Bank
... ... FLM, LLC ... v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , 973 N.E.2d 1167, 1173 ... (Ind.Ct.App. 2012) citing Wilcox Mfg. Grp., Inc. v ... Mktg. Servs. of Ind., Inc. , 832 N.E.2d 559, ... See Morgan v. Dickelman Ins. Agency, Inc. , 202 ... N.E.3d 454, ... ...
-
Zitzka v. Brogdon
... ... Heyser v. Noble ... Roman's Inc., 933 N.E.2d 16, 19 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010), ... reh'g ied, trans. denied; see ... also Morgan v. Dickelman Ins. Agency, Inc., 202 N.E.3d ... 454, ... ...