Opinion ID: 2622237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: auto-owners' agent misrepresented the policy's scope of coverage

Text: ¶ 26 Our first inquiry is whether the agent's oral statements constituted misrepresentations of the policy's scope of coverage or other benefits. Youngblood argues that the agent made two such misrepresentations: (1) that the policy also covered Youngblood as an individual, even though Youngblood Home Improvement, Inc., was the named insured on the document, and (2) that the policy would cover Youngblood if he were struck by a car while walking down the street. ¶ 27 We agree that these statements are misrepresentations of the policy's coverage. When parsed with great care, the policy terms do not include coverage of Youngblood when struck by a car while a pedestrian. Under provision 2(a), a person may recover from the owner of an underinsured automobile for bodily injuries sustained while occupying an automobile covered by the policy. Youngblood was on foot at the time of the injury. ¶ 28 Youngblood was walking through a medical plaza parking lot when struck and injured. He was not in or on an automobile as a passenger or operator, nor was he entering an automobile at the time. Thus, under the policy, he was not occupying an automobile at the time of the accident. ¶ 29 Under provision 2(b), when the first named insured in the Declaration is an individual, the coverage extends to those bodily injuries sustained as a pedestrian. Here, the first named insured on the policy is Youngblood Home Improvement, Inc., a corporate business entity, not an individual. This language precludes coverage for Youngblood as a pedestrian because the coverage does not apply if the first named insured (the corporation in this case) is not an individual. ¶ 30 The language of the policy classifies Youngblood as neither a covered pedestrian nor occupying his automobile at the time of the accident, as required for Youngblood to benefit from the coverage provided by the policy. ¶ 31 Youngblood testified, however, that the agent provided a scenario under which the policy would cover Youngblood under these exact circumstances as a pedestrian. In his deposition, Youngblood testified that the agent said, Hey, if you're walking down the street, you've got nothing if you have  if you don't have underinsured and uninsured motorist [coverage] and somebody runs you over. Or [y]ou could be sitting at your desk or walking down the street and if you don't have the coverage, you've got nothing. [16] These statements are in direct conflict with the language of the policy, which does not extend coverage to Youngblood under the given circumstances. Consequently, the agent made misrepresentations about the policy's coverage and other benefits.