Passarello v. Lexington Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 10 July 1990 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. H-89-66 (PCD). |
Citation | 740 F. Supp. 933 |
Parties | Guy PASSARELLO d/b/a/ Tri-Crest Egg Farm, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Peter Rustin, Peter N. Upton, Tarlow, Levy, Harding & Droney, P.C., Farmington, Conn., for plaintiff.
Frank F. Coulom, Sally S. King, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, Conn., for defendants.
Matthew E. Karanian, John B. Farley, John W. Lemega, Halloran, Sage Phelon & Hagarty, Hartford, Conn., for Lexington Ins. Co.
Richard C. Robinson, Sorokin, Sorokin, Gross Hyde & Williams, Hartford, Conn., for Alexander Howden North America, Inc.
RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from a fire which destroyed plaintiff's chicken farm. Defendant Lexington Insurance Company ("Lexington") allegedly breached its contract of insurance by paying only $1,000,000 rather than the $1,285,000 in fire coverage and $200,000 in business interruption coverage allegedly provided by the policy. Plaintiff claims the loss exceeds $1,467,080. Plaintiff alleges that the remaining defendants, Fred S. James & Company of Georgia, Inc. ("James") and Alexander Howden North America, Inc. ("AHNA"), failed to exercise reasonable care in causing Lexington to issue an insurance policy other than in the amount requested by plaintiff. Lexington and AHNA move for summary judgment.
Plaintiff owned a chicken farm and in August 1987 plaintiff sought insurance against fire loss, among other things. Plaintiff claims he asked James to obtain coverage of $1,285,000 for property loss and $200,000 for Business Interruption. Complaint at ¶ 9. James contacted AHNA, a wholesale insurance broker, which acted as an intermediary broker between James and Lexington.
On August 12, 1987, Lexington issued a policy insuring plaintiff's farm, ¶ 6, stating the coverage on the face of the policy, which was not transmitted to plaintiff until March 23, 1988, as $1,285,000 per occurrence. ¶ 6, Exhibit A. An endorsement, prepared by AHNA and executed by Lexington, altered the coverage to $1,000,000 per occurrence. Affidavit of Edna Lowry at ¶ 23-26; see Exhibit Z, attached to Affidavit of Edna Lowry. On April 11, 1988, approximately two weeks after plaintiff received the policy documents, a fire destroyed the farm causing damage in excess of $1,467,080.78. Lexington has paid $1,000,000, the amount it claims is covered by the policy. Defendants claim plaintiff only requested coverage of $1,000,000.
A motion for summary judgment will be granted where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Schwabenbauer v. Board of Educ., 667 F.2d 305, 313 (2d Cir.1981). "The burden is on the moving party `to demonstrate the absence of any material factual issue genuinely in dispute.'" American Int'l Group, Inc. v. London American Int'l Corp., 664 F.2d 348, 351 (2d Cir.1981), quoting Heyman v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 524 F.2d 1317, 1319-20 (2d Cir.1975). Not only must no genuine issue as to the evidentiary facts exist, but no controversy regarding the inferences drawn from them may exist, as well. Schwabenbauer, 667 F.2d at 313. In determining whether a genuine factual issue exists, the court must "resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party." United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam).
AHNA moves for summary judgment claiming that it owes no duty to plaintiff and was not negligent in procuring the policy. Dealing exclusively with retailers, AHNA contends it acted as James' agent. AHNA argues that it was not acting as plaintiff's insurance broker and owed no duty to plaintiff.
Conn.Gen.Stat. § 38-69. See also Ursini, 118 Conn at 559, 173 A. 789. The broker is the agent of the insured in negotiating a policy and as such owes a duty of care to his principal. Id.; see also Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, Volume 16A § 8841 p. 171. A broker acts as the middleman between the insured and the insurer. Ursini, 118 Conn. at 559, 173 A. 789; see also Lewis v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 154 Conn. 660, 664, 228 A.2d 803 (1967), citing Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice, Vol. 16 § 8726 p. 338.
Having received an order from James to procure insurance for plaintiff, AHNA acted as plaintiff's subagent. As plaintiff's agent, James was authorized to appoint a subagent. Rayden Engineering Corp. v. Church, 337 Mass. 652, 151 N.E.2d 57, 62-63 (1958) ( ); see also United States v. Mendoza-Acuna, 764 F.2d 699, 702 (9th Cir.1985) ( A subagent is "`a person to whom the agent delegates, as his agent, the performance of an act for the principal which the agent has been empowered to perform through his own representative.'" Rayden, 151 N.E.2d at 63, citing, Restatement: Agency, § 5. If the agent is authorized, expressly or impliedly, to select a subagent and does so in good faith, the agent is not liable to the principal for the subagent's negligence. Davis v. King, 66 Conn. 465, 472 (1895); Rayden, 151 N.E.2d at 63, n. 1. The subagent stands in a fiduciary relationship to the principal and is subject to the same liabilities as an agent. Rayden, 151 N.E.2d at 63, n. 1.
AHNA claims that it cannot be liable as a subagent because plaintiff neither expressly nor impliedly authorized James' appointment of AHNA. This argument lacks merit. While there is no evidence of an express authorization, the facts suggest that authorization may be found by implication. Faced with the same question in Davis, the plaintiff was held to have impliedly authorized the defendant, an investment broker, to employ an investment brokerage firm to collect on a note plaintiff purchased from the broker. 66 Conn. at 473 ( ). Significantly, plaintiff knew defendant was not a collection agent and defendant did not hold himself out as such. Id. Similarly, James did not hold itself out as a primary insurer. Plaintiff did not anticipate that James would personally or directly insure plaintiff's property. Plaintiff knew James was an insurance brokerage firm and hired it to secure an insurance package from an insurer. Deposition of Guy Passarello at 15-20, 27-28. Plaintiff's request that James secure appropriate insurance coverage could be found to have implicitly authorized James to employ a subagent to effect the order if it was unable to do so by itself.
"Full power to procure fire insurance for another includes whatever is reasonably incidental thereto ... including the power to engage subagents or to delegate authority." Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice, Vol. 16, § 8723 pp. 324-325, citing, Lavoie v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 85 N.H. 550, 161 A. 376, aff'd 85 N.H. 550, 162 A. 182 (1932). This is precisely what plaintiff requested and authorized James to do. Plaintiff placed an order and James sought the aid of an agent to perform that task. There is no evidence that plaintiff restricted James from doing so. Both James and AHNA were agents of the plaintiff, acting as middlemen between him and Lexington. As a subagent AHNA owed plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in effecting the insurance he requested.
AHNA next contends that, even assuming it owed plaintiff a duty of care, it is entitled to summary judgment because it did not act negligently. AHNA claims that since it had no contact with plaintiff and did exactly what James asked it to do, it could not have been negligent. Plaintiff, however, has come forth with evidence that raises a question of fact as to whether AHNA acted with reasonable care and diligence with respect to plaintiff's account, as required by Ursini. Edna Lowry, an employee of AHNA handling plaintiff's account, testified that she noticed a discrepancy between the amount of insurance listed on the binder received from Lexington, $1,285,000, and the amount of coverage purportedly requested by plaintiff, $1,000,000. Deposition of Edna Lowry at 61-64; Affidavit of Edna Lowry ¶¶ 15-17. Rather than confirm plaintiff's request with James or plaintiff, Lowry waited one week prior to notifying Lexington of the apparent discrepancy. Id. In response to plaintiff's counsel's inquiry with respect to the delay, Lowry commented that Id. at 64. Indeed, it took approximately eight months...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
AYH Holdings, Inc. v. Avreco, Inc., No. 1-03-3712
...stands in a fiduciary relationship to the principal and is subject to the same liabilities as an agent." Passarello v. Lexington Insurance Co., 740 F.Supp. 933, 936 (D.Conn.1990). Specifically, "[a]n agency relationship exists between the principal and an authorized subagent, and, under the......
-
Hallas v. Boehmke and Dobosz, Inc.
...United States District Court cases cited in the plaintiffs' reply brief do not persuade us otherwise. See Passarello v. Lexington Ins. Co., 740 F.Supp. 933, 937-38 (D.Conn.1990); Teleco Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Skandia Ins. Co., 656 F.Supp. 753, 757 (D.Conn.1987). In neither of these case......
-
Ward v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
...retail insurance broker. E.g., United Capitol Ins. Co. v. Kapiloff, 155 F.3d 488, 499 (4th Cir. 1998); Passarello v. Lexington Ins. Co., 740 F. Supp. 933, 935-36 (D. Conn. 1990). ISI argues that these cases are irrelevant because they are not based on California law, but provides no explana......
-
Heller v. Networked Ins. Agents, Inc., B261013
...the Hellers' contentions that NIA was their broker, co-broker, agent, or subagent. The Hellers' reliance on Passarello v. Lexington Ins. Co. (D.Conn. 1990) 740 F.Supp. 933 is misplaced. In that case, the plaintiff asked an insurance broker to procure insurance for his business. The broker t......
-
The Changing Landscape of Uninsured/underinsured Mortorist Insurance Law in Connecticut
...stands in a fiduciary relationship to the principal and is subject to the same liabilities as an agent. Passarel v. Lexington Ins. Co., 740 F.Supp. 933, 936 (D.Conn. 1990)- Rayden Engineering Corp. v. Church, 151 N.E.2d 57, 63 (Mass. 1958). Further, the relationship of an insurance broker a......