Title: Lawrence v. Francis
Citation: 267 S.W.2d 306
Docket Number: 5-389
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: April 26, 1954

267 S.W.2d 306 (1954) LAWRENCE v. FRANCIS et ux. No. 5-389. Supreme Court of Arkansas. April 26, 1954. Joe W. McCoy, Malvern, for appellant. Ben M. McCray, Benton, W. H. McClellan, Malvern, for appellees. McFADDIN, Justice. This is an action for damages brought by the property owner, Francis, against the insurance broker, Lawrence, for failure to obtain insurance on property in accordance with an agreement. From a verdict and *307 judgment for the plaintiff, Francis, for $4,000, the defendant, Lawrence, prosecutes this appeal; and the main insistence for reversal is that no definite contract was ever made by the parties. Mr. Francis had lived in the State of Minnesota for many years, but decided to move to Arkansas. In July, 1951, he went to Malvern, Arkansas, to see Mr. Craft, a real estate agent, who showed him several places, but none was satisfactory. Then Mr. Craft took Mr. Francis to Mr. Lawrence, also a real estate agent, to look at his listings. Mr. Lawrence showed Mr. Francis the property of Mr. and Mrs. Holiman, which consisted of 2% acres, with a modern 5-room house, garage, barn, and chicken-house. Mr. Francis agreed to buy the Holiman property for a total price of $5,000. He deposited $400 with Mr. Lawrence, and signed an agreement to pay the balance of $4,600 within 90 days. This contract was signed by Mr. Francis and the Holimans on July 17, 1951, and on that date occurred the agreement here involved. Mr. Francis was to return to Minnesota to liquidate his holdings there, in order to obtain the balance of $4,600. Mr. Lawrence was an insurance agent, as well as a real estate agent. Here is Mr. Francis' pertinent testimony: Mr. Francis returned to Minnesota and in August sent to Mr. Craft a cashier's check for $4,600, who delivered it to Mr. Lawrence on August 21st; and on the same day, he paid the money to Mr. and Mrs. Holiman. As Notary Public, Mr. Lawrence took the acknowledgment of the deed transferring the property that day to Mr. Francis. The Holimans had a $4,000 fire insurance policy on the house and buildings; and on August 21st they cancelled their insurance. Mr. Lawrence does not claim that he mentioned anything to the Holimans about transferring the insurance policy to Mr. Francis; and Mr. Lawrence did not insure the property for Mr. Francis with any company. On August 31st, all of the buildings were destroyed by fire. Mr. Francis, still in Minnesota, learned of the fire on September 7th, and immediately went to Malvern and contacted Mr. Lawrence; and here is Mr. Francis' testimony about that conversation : That Mr. Lawrence did agree to look after the insurance for Mr. Francis is substantiated by Mr. Craft, who testified: The foregoing facts are detailed from the viewpoint of Mr. Francis, since the Jury verdict was in his favor; and in testing the sufficiency of the evidence, we always view the facts in the light most favorable to support the Jury verdict. Oviatt v. Garretson, 205 Ark. 792, 171 S.W.2d 287; Potashnick Local Truck System v. Archer, 207 Ark. 220, 179 S.W.2d 696; and see other cases collected in 2 West's Ark.Dig, Appeal =930. Mr. Lawrence urges, here, that the foregoing facts are insufficient to support the verdict; and he insists that he was entitled to an instructed verdict in his favor, because he claims the agreement alleged by Mr. Francis shows these defects: (1) there was no consideration; (2) there was no mutuality of assent; (3) there was no agreement as to the price of the policy; (4) there was no agreement as to payment of premium; (5) there was no amount of insurance specified; and (6) there was no duration of the policy stated. We hold that the Trial Court ruled correctly in refusing Mr. Lawrence's request for an instructed verdict, and also in refusing Mr. Lawrence's other requested Instructions, amplifying on the six matters as above stated. It was shown by another Insurance Agent in Malvern that such a request as Mr. Francis made of Mr. Lawrence, in regard to insurance, was a sufficient instruction to any insurance agent to bind the risk and extend credit for the coverage. Mr. Lawrence, as a real estate agent, had a commission coming from completing the Holiman sale; and his interest in completing the sale, as well as his profit from writing insurance, constituted a sufficient consideration to support his promise to Mr. Francis to "see about the insurance". In 29 Am.Jur. 130, the holding of the cases is summarized in this language: As to what kind of insurancei. e., fire, windstorm, etc.there is no need to argue: Holiman had fire insurance, and the buildings were destroyed by fire. As to the amount of the insurance coverage, it was shown that Holiman had $4,000 fire insurance on the buildings. Lawrence made no effort to have the Holiman fire insurance policies transferred to Francis: Lawrence could and should have obtained the same kind and amount of insurance for Francis that Holiman had. When the deed was delivered to Lawrence on August 21st, Holiman told Lawrence that he (Holiman) was cancelling his insurance on the property. Certainly on that day Lawrence could and should have either taken over Holiman's fire insurance policy for Francis, or should have obtained other insurance of like amount. Such was his promise to Francis. Lawrence failed entirely to exercise reasonable care to perform his agreement with Francis as to insurance. In our recent case of Derby v. Blankenship, 217 Ark. 272, 230 S.W.2d 481, 483, we had occasion to discuss the liability of an insurance agent,i. e, a brokerfor failure to obtain insurance in accordance with his agreement; and we there approved an Instruction which declared the law to be: that where an insurance agent undertakes to procure a policy of insurance for another, the law imposes upon the agent the duty, in the exercise of reasonable care, to perform the obligation that he has assumed, and the agent may be held liable for any losswithin the amount of the proposed policysuffered by the applicant attributable to the agent's failure to provide such insurance. We then said: The case of Derby v. Blankenship is ruling in the case at bar. Affirmed,