Wiggam v. Associates Financial Services of Indiana, Inc.
| Citation | 677 N.E.2d 87 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-9602-CV-111,49A02-9602-CV-111 |
| Parties | Donald E. WIGGAM and Launa Jeanette Wiggam, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL SERVICES OF INDIANA, INC. and Associates Financial Life Insurance Company, Appellees-Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
G.R. Parish, Jr., Morris L. Klapper, Klapper Isaac & Parish, Indianapolis, for Appellants-Plaintiffs.
Brian K. Peters, McHale, Cook & Welch, P.C., Indianapolis, for Appellees-Defendants.
Donald E. Wiggam and Launa Jeanette Wiggam (the Wiggams), plaintiffs below, appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Associates Financial Services of Indiana, Inc. (AFS) and Associates Financial Life Insurance Co. (AFL).
We affirm.
The following facts, with one significant exception which will be noted below, are not in dispute. On April 3, 1986, the Wiggams applied to AFS for a personal loan in the amount of $44,000. At the same time, AFS offered to arrange for and obtain for the Wiggams a Credit Life Insurance Policy (Credit Life) and a Credit Accident and Health Insurance Policy (Credit Disability) through the Cumberland Life Insurance Co., now known as AFL The Wiggams decided to purchase this insurance. Their purchase of the insurance was reflected upon their loan application, which provided that a premium of $6,500 for the Credit Life coverage and a premium of $1504.34 for the Credit Disability insurance would be added to the principle loan amount. Donald Wiggam's signatures appear on the application next to these amounts under language which respectively recites, "I want single credit life insurance," and "I want credit accident and health insurance." That portion of the application appeared as follows:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The loan was subsequently approved. A section of the application provides that the "term of decreasing life insurance" was to be 120 months, with a "maximum amount of life insurance" of $100,000. Similarly, the application provided that the "term of disability insurance" was to be 84 months, with a "maximum disability benefit" amount of $29,400, and a "maximum monthly disability indemnity" of $350. Record at 22.
On April 21, 1988, the Wiggams returned to the same AFS office to apply for another personal loan, this one in the amount of $48,900. The Wiggams were assisted by Mr. Craig Keller, assistant manager of the AFS office in question. Mr. Keller was not involved in the 1986 loan transaction. As with the 1986 transaction, however, Keller offered to arrange for and obtain insurance in connection with the Wiggams' loan. The Wiggams contend that Keller offered to provide them with both Credit Life and Credit Disability coverage, the same coverage procured during the 1986 loan transaction. The Wiggams also state that Keller specifically assured them on at least three separate occasions that if Donald Wiggam were to become disabled, the payments on his loan would continue to be made, presumably through proceeds from the Credit Disability insurance. 1
Keller, however, claims that he never offered to procure Credit Disability insurance for the Wiggams. The 1988 loan application form, identical to the one used in the 1986 loan transaction, shows Donald Wiggam's signature under the word's, "I want single credit life insurance." Record at 25. This language, as in the 1986 loan application form, is next to a box which indicates that the Wiggams' premium for this insurance will again be $6,500. However, unlike in the 1986 application, no signature is to be found under the words, "I want credit accident and health insurance". Moreover, the premium for the Credit Disability coverage was stated to be "-0-". The applicable portion of the 1988 application is reproduced as follows:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The 1988 application provides, in pre-printed type identical to that used throughout the rest of the form, that the "maximum disability benefit" is to be $29,400, and that the "maximum monthly disability indemnity" is to be $350. However, directly above these figures in a space entitled "term of disability insurance", the application provides, in typewritten print not of the same kind as is used throughout the rest of the form, the term "N/A". This portion of the application is reproduced as follows:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
In May of 1992, Donald Wiggam became totally disabled, and in June of 1992 the Wiggams went to the AFS office to advise AFS of Mr. Wiggams' disability and to make a claim for Credit Disability benefits. AFS informed the Wiggams that while both a Credit Life and a Credit Disability policy were obtained in connection with their 1986 loan, only a Credit Life policy was obtained for the 1988 loan.
On May 16, 1994 the Wiggams filed a complaint against AFS and AFL which set forth four separate theories of liability. The Wiggams claimed that the defendants breached an oral contract to procure Credit Disability insurance in connection with the 1988 loan, negligently failed to procure the insurance, were liable upon grounds of promissory estoppel, and had fraudulently failed to procure the insurance. On September 11, 1995, both defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on December 4, 1995. The Wiggams appeal the trial court's decision.
In order to prevail upon appeal where a summary judgment motion has been granted in favor of an opposing party, the appealing party has the burden to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact from materials designated to the trial court. Thompson v. Murat Shrine Club, Inc. (1994) Ind.App., 639 N.E.2d 1039, trans. denied.
As noted above, only one fact is in dispute: whether or not Mr. Keller advised the Wiggams that the amount of their loan would be protected by Credit Disability insurance. The Wiggams claim that Mr. Keller assured them that in the event that Mr. Wiggam was disabled, his loan payments would continue to be made, presumably out of proceeds from the Credit Disability policy. Mr. Keller, however, maintains that he never told the Wiggams that they were obtaining Credit Disability insurance in connection with the 1988 loan, or that if Mr. Wiggam became disabled at any time during the period of the loan that the loan would be paid off for the Wiggams. The issue in this case is thus whether this disputed fact is material to the resolution of the Wiggams' claims.
We note here that the Wiggams' brief fails to explain why the causes of action set forth in their complaint cannot be disposed of without a determination as to whether or not Keller made the representations ascribed to him. The Wiggams complain that the trial court focused upon the loan application forms, and claim that this was improper by "arguing" without elaboration that the disputed fact is material to the disposition of their claims. Aside from their conclusory assertion, the Wiggams make two points. First, they argue that an insured's reasonable reliance upon an insurance agent's representations may override the express terms of an insurance contract. Second, they argue that the 1988 loan application did not clearly indicate that the Wiggams were not applying for, and should not expect to be covered by, credit disability insurance in connection with their 1988 loan.
AFS and AFL argue that summary judgment was properly entered against the Wiggams because an examination of the application for the 1988 loan can lead to only one reasonable inference: that the Wiggams specifically declined the opportunity to procure Credit Disability coverage for the 1988 loan. The Wiggams, however, argue that while the 1988 loan application may suggest that they did not request Credit Disability insurance, their reasonable reliance upon Mr. Keller's alleged representations should override any terms in the application to the contrary. The Wiggams correctly note that in Medtech Corp. v. Indiana Ins. Co. (1990) Ind.App., 555 N.E.2d 844, trans. denied, we determined that while an insured generally has a duty to become familiar with the contents of an insurance policy, an insured's reasonable reliance upon an agent's representations which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huizar v. Allstate Ins. Co., 96SC643
...from ordinary, bilateral contracts. See Jones v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 937 P.2d 1360, 1361 (Alaska 1997); Wiggam v. Associates Fin. Serv., Inc., 677 N.E.2d 87, 91 (Ind.App.1997); Rodman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 208 N.W.2d 903, 905 (Iowa 1973); U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, Co. v. Ferguson......
-
Jones v. Western Reserve Group/Lightning Rod Mut. Ins. Co.
...fact from those materials designated to the trial court. Miller Brewing, supra, 674 N.E.2d at 198; Wiggam v. Associates Fin. Serv. of Ind., Inc. (1997) Ind.App., 677 N.E.2d 87, 90, trans. denied. Genuine issues of material fact exist where facts concerning an issue which would dispose of li......
-
Morgan v. Dickelman Ins. Agency, Inc.
...coverage was reasonable." Id. at 1076. In reaching this conclusion, the Earl court distinguished Wiggam v. Associates Financial Services of Indiana, Inc. , 677 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), explaining that "the language in the PLUP is more complex than the two-page loan document in Wiggam......
-
Morgan v. Dickelman Ins. Agency
...Id. at 1076. In reaching this conclusion, the Earl court distinguished Wiggam v. Associates Financial Services of Indiana, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 87 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997), explaining that "the language in the PLUP is more complex than the two-page loan document in Wiggam" and that "even within State......