Opinion ID: 2543075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Procure the Requested Coverage

Text: ¶ 34. The Mladineos allege that Schmidt and the Felsher Agency breached their duty to procure the insurance coverage the Mladineos requested. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on this issue and found that, where an insured has such fair notice of the terms of his policy and ample time to reject it if he considers it insufficient, he cannot complain that his agent failed to obtain requested coverage. ¶ 35. As stated above, the elements of a negligence claim are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. Holliday v. Pizza Inn, Inc., 659 So.2d 860, 864 (Miss.1995) (quoting Skelton v. Twin County Rural Elec. Ass'n, 611 So.2d 931, 936 (Miss.1992)). With respect to the element of duty in the present matter, it is well-settled that if an insurance agent or broker with a view to being compensated agrees to procure insurance for another and through fault or neglect fails to do so, he will be liable for any damage that results thereby. McKinnon, 485 So.2d at 297 (quoting Simpson v. M-P. Enter., Inc., 252 So.2d 202, 207 (Miss. 1971)). ¶ 36. Here, it is disputed whether Schmidt, and through him, the Felsher Agency, breached this duty. The Mladineos clearly have damages, as they have incurred uninsured losses caused by Hurricane Katrina. The central inquiry is causationif Schmidt breached his duty as an insurance agent, did that proximately cause the Mladineos' injury? ¶ 37. John claims he made a request for insurance coverage, including both wind and water damage for any named storm. However, the rule of this Court for more than a century has been: The [insurance] policy itself [is] notice to the assured that the company ... assured against loss to [the] extent [of the policy's language] only; that it expressly excluded every interest from the insurance, unless the assured immediately notified it that there was a different interest, and procured a written consent thereto. The silent acceptance of the policy by the assured closed the contract, and bound the assured to the agreement tendered by the policy ... Rosenstock v. Miss. Home Ins. Co., 82 Miss. 674, 35 So. 309, 311 (1903) (emphasis added). Mladineo admitted he knew that flood policies can be purchased separately from homeowner's policies, yet he did not request such a policy at the time of the initial negotiations, or after receipt of the subject policy. As quoted supra, the policy language clearly excludes damage from waterand the Mladineos' silent acceptance of this policy bound them to its terms. ¶ 38. The trial court was correct: even if Schmidt breached his duty as an insurance agent to procure the requested coverage, the Mladineos' silence was the proximate cause of their damage. If they had executed their duty to read the policy, they would have noticed that the policy plainly did not cover the things that they assumed hurricane policies would cover. Therefore, the trial court is affirmed as to the dismissal of the claim for negligent failure to procure requested coverage.