Opinion ID: 1138293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Issue 9: The verdict for Sorrells and Chaffin but against Independent Life.

Text: Independent Life contends that the jury verdict was inconsistent because the jury did not find that its agents, Sorrells and Chaffin, had fraudulently suppressed a material fact, but found that it had. It asserts that Harrington failed to make out a prima facie case of suppression against Independent Life because, it argues, the evidence indicated that it, like its agents, had no actual knowledge of the facts alleged to have been suppressed. However, the record indicates that Independent Life was plainly aware of its own refunding policy, which is the relevant fact in the suppression allegation. Sorrells, the defendant former agent dealing with Casey, testified that his district manager told him that premiums paid after the insured reached age 65 could not be refunded. Ken Strasen, an Independent Life executive, testified that premiums paid after the insured reached age 65 could be refunded. Thus, the jury could reasonably infer from Sorrells's testimony that agents of Independent Life were not aware of the refunding policy. However, the jury could also reasonably infer from Strasen's testimony that Independent Life was aware of the refunding policy. A principal cannot escape liability merely by failing to inform its agent of the facts. Bolton Ford of Mobile, Inc. v. Little, 344 So.2d 1208 (Ala.1977). Given these facts, we conclude that the jury's verdict was not inconsistent.