Rawlings v. Fruhwirth
Decision Date | 25 April 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 900021,900021 |
Citation | 455 N.W.2d 574 |
Parties | Donald L. RAWLINGS, for the benefit of himself, Barbara Rawlings, Lisa Rawlings and the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, and as assignee of Charles D. Sweeney, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William FRUHWIRTH, Defendant, and Duane Larson and First American Insurance Company of Larimore, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Stefanson, Landberg & Plambeck, Moorhead, Minn., for plaintiff and appellant; argued by Todd W. Foss.
Vaaler, Gillig, Warcup, Woutat, Zimney & Foster, Grand Forks, for defendants and appellees; argued by Thomas L. Zimney.
Donald Rawlings appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his claim for negligence against Duane Larson and First American Agency, Inc. (First American). 1 We affirm.
This case is a negligence action against two Larimore, North Dakota insurance agents: William Fruhwirth, d/b/a Larimore Insurance Agency and Duane Larson, employed by First American Agency, Inc. It is an offshoot of a wrongful death action entitled Donald L. Rawlings v. Charles D. Sweeney, Grand Forks County District Court, case no. 86131, which ended in a settlement. As part of the settlement, Charles Sweeney assigned his cause of action against Fruhwirth and Larson to Donald Rawlings, the appellant in this case. 2
On July 17, 1985, a motor vehicle accident occurred involving Charles Sweeney and Gerald Rawlings, Donald's son. Gerald died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. At the time of the accident, Sweeney had automobile liability insurance with General Casualty Company with a limit of $25,000, which had been obtained through Fruhwirth. Sweeney also had an umbrella policy written by St. Paul Fire and Marine which was obtained through Larson. The umbrella policy covered liability from $250,000 to $1,250,000. Thus, on July 17, 1985, when the accident occurred, there was a gap in Sweeney's liability insurance coverage between the $25,000 limit of the auto insurance and the $250,000 of the umbrella policy. 3
Rawlings contends that Larson breached his duties as Sweeney's insurance agent in the following three ways:
In the second amended complaint dated October 17, 1988, Rawlings alleged:
"Larson, while acting as the insurance agent for Sweeney, breached certain duties and responsibilities to Sweeney and to third-parties to whom Sweeney might become liable, and failed to exercise such reasonable skill and ordinary diligence as may fairly be expected from a reasonably prudent insurance agent in Larson's situation by exposing Sweeney to personal liability as a result of a gap in coverage."
On March 17, 1989, Larson and First American moved for summary judgment. After considering briefs and oral argument of the parties, the district court, on July 25, 1989, granted the motion for summary judgment. In its memorandum decision, the district court, in pertinent part, said:
We have previously stated the criteria necessary to determine the propriety of granting a Rule 56, N.D.R.Civ.P., summary judgment as follows:
" "
Schill v. Langdon Farmers Union Oil Co., 442 N.W.2d 408, 410 (N.D.1989).
We have also previously expressed our reluctance to approve summary judgment in negligence actions. See Heimer v. Privratsky, 434 N.W.2d 357 (N.D.1989); Barsness v. General Diesel & Equipment Co., 383 N.W.2d 840 (N.D.1986); VanVleet v. Pfeifle, 289 N.W.2d 781 (N.D.1980); Kirton v. Williams Elec. Co-op., Inc., 265 N.W.2d 702 (N.D.1978). Nevertheless, summary judgment may be appropriate even in negligence cases. Heimer, supra at 359; See also Benjamin v. Benjamin, 439 N.W.2d 527 (N.D.1989); Morrison v. Grand Forks Housing Auth., 436 N.W.2d 221 (N.D.1989).
Rawlings, in his brief, likens his cause of action to a malpractice claim, which is a professional negligence claim. Accordingly, we have considered this case in that vein. Without concluding that the insurance business is a profession, 4 we note that we have held that the elements of a professional negligence action are the existence of a duty or standard of care on the part of the professional to protect another from injury, the failure to discharge that duty, and a resulting injury proximately caused by the breach of duty. Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Eng., 419 N.W.2d 920, 921-22 (N.D.1988). While we have never set out a standard of care or duty owed to an insured by an insurance agent, we note that other sources have recognized such standards:
[Emphasis added.]
16A J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice Sec. 8836, at 64-66 (rev. ed. 1981). See Jones v. Grewe, 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 234 Cal.Rptr. 717 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.1987) ( ); Sandbulte v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 343 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1984) ( ); Gabrielson v. Warnemunde, 443 N.W.2d 540 (Minn.1989) ( ).
Other jurisdictions also recognize that an expanded duty or standard of care may arise on the part of an insurance agent on the basis of a "special relationship" between the insurance agent and the insured. See Jones, supra, 234 Cal.Rptr. 717 ( ); Sandbulte, supra, 343 N.W.2d 457 ( ); Bruner v. League General Ins. Co., 164 Mich.App. 28, 416 N.W.2d 318 (1987) ( ); Born v. Medico Life Ins. Co., 428 N.W.2d 585 (Minn.Ct.App.1988) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cichos v. Dakota Eye Inst., P.C.
... ... See Perius v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. , 2010 ND 80, 9, 782 N.W.2d 355 ; Rawlings v. Fruhwirth , 455 N.W.2d 574, 577 (N.D. 1990) ; Saltsman v. Sharp , 2011 ND 172, 11, 803 N.W.2d 553 ; M.M. v. Fargo Pub. Sch. Dist. #1 , 2010 ... ...
-
Somnus Mattress Corp. v. Hilson
... ... , or (4) the agent assumes an additional duty by either express agreement with or promise to the insured." (footnotes omitted) ); and Rawlings v. Fruhwirth , 455 N.W.2d 574, 57677 (N.D. 1990) ("[W]here an agent also holds himself out as a consultant and counselor, he does have a duty to ... ...
-
Bjerk v. Anderson
... ... However, "[i]n a negligence action, whether or not a duty exists is generally an initial question of law for the court." Rawlings v. Fruhwirth , 455 N.W.2d 574, 577 (N.D. 1990). If the existence of a duty depends on resolving factual issues, the facts must be resolved by the ... ...
-
Hurt v. Freeland
... ... If the existence of a duty depends upon factual determinations, the facts must be determined by the fact finder. Rawlings v. Fruhwirth, 455 N.W.2d 574, 577 (N.D.1990); Barsness v. General Diesel & Equipment Co., 383 N.W.2d 840, 843 (N.D.1986). Issues of fact, however, ... ...