Opinion ID: 1251042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: if gray is found to have been tarr's agent when she purchased fire coverage for his property, tarr whether a disclosed or undisclosed principal can bring an action in tort against the insurer to redress any injury to his property or harm to his interest from the transaction by gray as his agent

Text: Resolution of Tarr's standing [4] to sue Republic and Holman requires a factual inquiry into whether Gray was Tarr's agent [5] or merely an officious volunteer. [6] If, in fact, Tarr was either Gray's disclosed or undisclosed principal and Gray was authorized to secure fire coverage for the premises on Tarr's behalf, any injury to the property or harm from the agent's (Gray's) transaction can be redressed ex delicto. [7] In their briefs Republic and Holman assure us they knew nothing of Tarr or of his interest in the insured property until the present action was brought. Gray represents that Tarr authorized her to procure the insurance policy. Whether Gray and Tarr did, at the time she purchased the fire-loss coverage, stand vis-a-vis each other as agent and principal presents a factual dispute which is unfit for summary disposition and hence remains unresolved by the trilogy of the trial court's critical summary rulings of December 14, February 16 or March 7. Tarr's standing to sue cannot be denied anterior to determining Gray's status qua Tarr's agent. [8]