Title: Small v. King

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Small v. King1996 WY 63915 P.2d 1192Case Number: 95-169Decided: 05/01/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming

CURTIS and MARGIE SMALL, husband and wife, d/b/a Wind 
River Talent Productions, 

 Appellants (Plaintiffs), 

 

v. 

 

EDWARD A. KING and ROCKY MOUNTAIN CAPITAL AGENCY, a 
Wyoming corporation,  

Appellees (Defendants).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Fremont County 

The 
Honorable Nancy Guthrie, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellants: 

John R. Hursh, Donald J. Rissler and Nyla A. Murphy 
of Central Wyoming Law Associates, P.C., Riverton. 

Representing 
Appellee: 

Weston W. Reeves and Timothy W. Miller of Reeves 
& Murdock, Casper.

 

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

TAYLOR, Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellants 
contend that the district court erred when it refused to give a particular jury 
instruction and that the jury rejected their claims because the jury 
instructions were defective. After an adverse verdict, appellants filed a motion 
for a new trial. The district court denied that motion and this appeal 
followed.

 

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 

I. 
ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Appellants 
identify the following issues:

 

ISSUE 
I. The trial court erred in refusing 
jury instructions, tendered by the appellant[s] as their theory of the case, 
which relied upon the exceptions to the general rule "that a mere request for 
`full coverage, the best coverage' or similar such expressions does not place an 
insurance agent under a duty to determine and provide the insured's requested 
insurance needs.["]

ISSUE 
II. Whether the court abused its 
discretion in failing to grant a new trial on grounds the jury misunderstood the 
instructions given.

 

[¶4]      Appellees state a 
single issue:

 

Whether the district court properly refused to give 
Plaintiffs' Instruction No. 20.

 

II. 
FACTS

 

[¶5]      Curtis and Margie 
Small (the Smalls) promoted a Tanya Tucker concert in Riverton, Wyoming which 
was scheduled for July 5, 1991. The Smalls contacted Edward A. King (King) 
regarding insurance for the event. The Smalls insist they requested "full 
coverage" for the concert, but King denies they requested such coverage. King 
eventually procured a general liability policy for which the Smalls paid a 
$360.82 premium.

 

[¶6]      On the afternoon 
of July 5, 1991, a gust of wind blew a lighting rack onto the stage and the 
concert was canceled. The lighting rack fell on a set of drums and also caused 
bodily injury. The general liability policy excluded coverage for weather 
related damage and contained a "custody and control" exclusion which excluded 
coverage for damage to the drum set. The Smalls assert the insurance policy was 
intended to cover all financial consequences, damages, or losses resulting from 
an occurrence at the concert.

 

[¶7]      When the coverage 
they expected was not forthcoming, the Smalls filed suit. The jury rejected 
their claims. The Smalls filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury 
was confused and misled by inadequate jury instructions. The district court 
denied the motion for a new trial, and the Smalls appeal that 
decision.

 

III. 
DISCUSSION

 

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶8]      The Smalls 
challenge the district court's decision not to instruct the jury as they 
requested. A substantive error in a jury instruction will require reversal only 
if the error is prejudicial. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Shrader, 882 P.2d 813, 832 (Wyo. 1994).

 

B. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

 

[¶9]      The Smalls argue 
that the jury instructions provided by the district court failed to articulate 
certain exceptions to the general rule that an insurance agent has limited 
obligations when an insured requests "full coverage." Generally, an insurance 
agent has no obligation to give advice regarding what type of insurance policy a 
client should purchase, even if the client requests "full coverage." Trotter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 
Co., 297 S.C. 465, 377 S.E.2d 343, 351-52 (1988). The Smalls contend that at 
least three exceptions to this general rule apply to the agent's actions in this 
case and that the jury should have been instructed regarding those 
exceptions.

 

[¶10]   First, they argue that an agent is 
liable if he undertakes to advise the insured and renders negligent advice. Id. 
at 351. No jury instruction was required on this point because there is no 
evidence in the record that King agreed to advise the Smalls. Second, the Smalls 
contend that the jury should have been instructed that an insurance agent is 
liable for damages resulting when the agent undertakes to procure a policy, but 
then, through neglect, fails to do so. No jury instruction was required on this 
point for the reason the agent in this case procured a policy. Of course, an 
agent who undertakes to procure a specific type of coverage owes the insured a 
duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in procuring the correct coverage. 
Id. at 350. However, an agent's duty to provide correct coverage cannot be 
triggered by a client's request for "full coverage" because the request is not a 
specific inquiry about a specific type of coverage. Id.

 

[¶11]   The Smalls also argue that the jury 
should have been instructed that an agent is liable if he misrepresents the 
coverage provided by a policy or leads the insured to believe a policy is in 
effect when it is not. The Smalls contend that King misrepresented the coverage 
by assuring them they had "full coverage" when in fact they had only purchased a 
general liability policy. The Smalls' misrepresentation argument fails because 
Margie Small read the policy binder for the general liability policy and 
concluded it was not what she wanted. She did not, however, reject the policy or 
otherwise seek to renegotiate the contract. Margie Small's knowledge that the 
policy did not provide the coverage she wanted destroys the claim that King 
misrepresented that coverage to her.

 

[¶12]   When purchasing insurance, a person 
has a duty to read the policy. Barnes v. 
Mangham, 153 Ga. App. 540, 265 S.E.2d 867, 868 (1980) (quoting Ga. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Meadors, 
138 Ga. App. 486, 487, 226 S.E.2d 318, 320 (1976)). If the policy is 
unacceptable, the person may either reject the policy or renegotiate the 
contract with the insurer. Id. (quoting Parris & Son, Inc. v. 
Campbell, 128 Ga. App. 165, 173, 196 S.E.2d 334, 340 (1973)). That person 
may not, however, maintain a claim for misrepresentation against the agent after 
the insured is aware the policy does not provide the coverage 
requested.

 

[¶13]   Finally, the Smalls argue that the 
district court abused its discretion when it refused to grant a new trial on the 
grounds that the jury was confused and misled by the jury instructions. This 
argument must fail because we have determined the jury instructions given by the 
district court were proper. The jury was neither misled nor confused by the jury 
instructions given and, therefore, the Smalls cannot establish the prejudicial 
error required to reverse. Shrader, 
882 P.2d  at 832.

 

IV. 
CONCLUSION

 

[¶14]   The jury instructions were proper 
and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a 
new trial. Affirmed.