Opinion ID: 2543075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Nationwide's Investigation of Schmidt's Errors-and-Omissions Claim

Text: ¶ 58. Finally, we will discuss the third issue raised on appeal by the Mladineos: whether Nationwide owed the Mladineos a duty to conduct a fair, prompt, and adequate investigation of the errors-and-omissions claim filed by Schmidt, and whether violation of such duty is actionable in tort. The Mladineos allege that Nationwide had a legal duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured in order to conduct a prompt, reasonable, and adequate investigation into whether Schmidt had committed negligence in the procurement of the specifically requested insurance coverage. ¶ 59. The Mladineos point out that Mississippi law imposes a duty on the insurance company promptly and fully to investigate any claim. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Bristow, 529 So.2d 620, 623 (Miss. 1988). The Mladineos complain that the investigation of Schmidt's errors-and-omissions claim was not adequate and did not meet the standard set forth in Bristow. ¶ 60. However, no duty exists on the part of Nationwide to investigate the errors and omissions of its agents in the present matter. The Mladineos admit that this is an action by a policyholder against its insuror. While Bristow requires that insurance companies adequately investigate claims made against the insurance policies they provide, it does not impose a duty on insurance companies to investigate claims against the company itself. Therefore, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment as to this issue.