Langwith v. American National General Insurance Company
2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 148, 793 N.W.2d 215 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The scope of an insurance agent's duty to a client is not limited to procuring requested insurance but is determined by the agreement between the parties, which may be implied from the totality of the circumstances, including their discussions, prior dealings, and the client's inquiries.
Facts:
- Dennis and Susan Langwith maintained their family's insurance, including an automobile liability policy and a $3 million umbrella policy, through agent Janet Fitzgerald.
- In December 2003, their son Ben's driver’s license was suspended, leading the insurer, American National, to remove him from the auto policy.
- To prevent cancellation of their umbrella policy, the Langwiths signed a form creating a driver exclusion, which precluded coverage for any loss sustained while Ben was operating a vehicle.
- After Ben's license was reinstated, Susan Langwith met with Fitzgerald and asked what could be done to provide liability coverage for Ben.
- Fitzgerald procured a new high-risk auto policy for Ben with $250,000 limits.
- The Langwiths assumed Ben was also covered again by the umbrella policy, but Fitzgerald did not inform them that the driver exclusion remained in effect.
- On July 16, 2006, Ben was in a car accident while driving a vehicle titled in his father's name, causing severe injuries to a passenger, Corey Shannon.
- American National acknowledged coverage under the auto policy but denied coverage under the umbrella policy, citing the driver exclusion for Ben.
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis and Ben Langwith sued agent Janet Fitzgerald and American National insurance companies in the Iowa district court (trial court).
- The Langwiths alleged Fitzgerald breached her duty of care by failing to disclose the continuing driver exclusion on their umbrella policy and by failing to advise them on how to title a vehicle to avoid liability.
- The Langwiths filed two motions for partial summary judgment on collateral issues.
- Fitzgerald and American National filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Fitzgerald did not owe the alleged duties.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Fitzgerald and American National, ruling that Fitzgerald had no duty beyond procuring the insurance requested by the Langwiths, and denied the Langwiths' motions.
- The Langwiths (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insurance agent's duty of care to a client extend beyond procuring requested insurance to include a duty to advise on the status of existing policy exclusions and to provide unsolicited risk-management advice, based on the totality of the circumstances of the agent-client relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Ternus, Chief Justice
Yes, in part. An insurance agent's duty can extend to advising on the status of existing policy exclusions when a client makes a specific inquiry regarding coverage, but it does not generally extend to unsolicited risk-management advice, such as how to title a vehicle, in the absence of a special agreement. The court overrules prior precedent that strictly limited an expanded duty to agents who hold themselves out as specialists and receive separate compensation. Instead, the scope of the agent's duty is a question of fact based on the agreement between the parties, as determined by the totality of the circumstances. Here, Susan Langwith’s inquiry about 'what we could do about Ben' in order to 'provide liability coverage that protects him and all of us' created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Fitzgerald assumed a duty to advise them fully on Ben's coverage status, including the continuing exclusion on the umbrella policy. However, the record contains no evidence of an express or implied agreement for Fitzgerald to provide risk-avoidance advice, such as how to title vehicles to avoid owner liability. A long-standing relationship is insufficient, by itself, to create a duty to advise on avoiding risk rather than simply insuring it.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters Iowa law by replacing the rigid, formalistic test from Sandbulte for an expanded agent duty with a flexible, fact-intensive 'totality of the circumstances' standard. This shift makes it easier for plaintiffs to argue that an agent assumed a broader advisory role, thereby increasing potential liability for insurance agents who fail to provide comprehensive advice following specific client inquiries. However, the court also sets a clear boundary, distinguishing the duty to advise on insurance coverage from a broader, non-assumed duty to provide general risk-management or legal advice, thus preventing agents from becoming de facto financial planners or risk managers for their clients.
