Torres v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1983 |
| Citation | 438 So.2d 757 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | John TORRES, Jr., and Eunice H. Torres v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, d/b/a State Farm Insurance Company. 82-397. |
Robert T. Cunningham, Jr. and Brian P. Philips of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown, Mobile, for appellants.
Lucian Gillis, Jr. of Reams, Wood, Vollmer, Philips, Killion & Brooks, Mobile, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Mobile County in favor of defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. We affirm.
For several years prior to the incident in question the plaintiffs, John and Eunice Torres, had purchased their homeowner's and automobile insurance through Clovis Goraum, a State Farm insurance agent. They testified that they relied on Mr. Goraum with regard to their insurance needs. On or about September 12, 1979, Mrs. Torres went to Mr. Goraum's office in connection with an insurance claim related to Hurricane Frederic. She testified in her deposition that "the first words out of my mouth when I went in the door were, 'The first thing I want to tell you is that we want flood coverage.' " According to Mrs. Torres, Elizabeth Hawkins, Mr. Goraum's employee, replied, "I'll take care of it." The Torreses admittedly received insurance policies each year from State Farm, but testified that they were unaware that the policies provided no coverage for flood damages.
No further conversations with regard to flood insurance took place between the Torreses and Mr. Goraum's office until the plaintiffs suffered flood damage on May 4, 1981. When Mrs. Torres reported the damage to Mr. Goraum, he told her that she did not have coverage.
The Torreses' complaint against Goraum and State Farm alleged breach of an agreement to secure flood insurance, negligent misrepresentation that flood insurance would be secured, and false misrepresentation that flood insurance would be secured.
State Farm denied that it received any request for flood insurance on behalf of the plaintiffs. It also alleged that it does not sell flood insurance. Such coverage is obtainable only through the National Flood Insurance Program. See 42 U.S.C. § 4001, et seq.
State Farm filed a motion for a summary judgment based on the pleadings, the plaintiffs' depositions, and an affidavit stating that State Farm does not provide flood coverage. The trial court granted the motion and, after making an express determination that there was no just reason for delay, directed entry of final judgment in favor of State Farm. A.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
A cause of action for misrepresentation exists when the plaintiff relies on a misrepresentation of a material fact and suffers damages as the proximate result of his reliance on the misrepresentation. Section 6-5-101, Code of Alabama. Furthermore, under Alabama law, an insurance company may incur liability as a result of the negligent misrepresentations of its agents. Woodham v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Morris
...or commercial), should be replaced with the ‘reasonable reliance’ standard most closely associated with Torres v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 438 So.2d 757 (Ala.1983). The ‘reasonable reliance’ standard is, in our view, a more practicable standard that will allow the factfinder greater ......
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...Civ. App. 2011) (quoting AmerUs Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 5 So.3d 1200, 1207 (Ala. 2008), quoting in turn Torres v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 438 So.2d 757, 758–59 (Ala. 1983), which was overruled on other grounds by Hickox v. Stover , 551 So.2d 259 (Ala. 1989) ). Further, the reasonable-re......
-
First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Ins. Co., Inc.
...if the facts were not material or if the defendant's conduct did not proximately cause the plaintiff's injury. Torres v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 438 So.2d 757, 758 (Ala.1983). Materiality and proximate cause are both absent from this case. I address these two requirements in A material ......
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...(Ala. Civ. App .2011) (quoting AmerUs Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 5 So.3d 1200, 1207 (Ala. 2008),quoting in turn Torres v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 438 So.2d 757, 758-59 (Ala. 1983), which was overruled on other grounds by Hickox v. Stover, 551 So. 2d 259 (Ala. 1989)). Further, the reasonabl......