Opinion ID: 1686840
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the lower court err in its instructions as to the duties owed the plaintiffs by the defendant Batte?

Text: The McKinnons contend instruction DB-12 was given in error because it instructed the jury that things have occurred since the flood that might have changed the standard of care. However, the Court agrees with the appellees that the instruction was proper because it actually instructed the jury not to consider the changes that have taken place and to consider the changes that have taken place and to consider only the standard of care existing at the time of the alleged negligence. It seems to be a well-settled rule that if an agent or broker with a view of 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. Simpson v. M.P. Enterprises, Inc., 252 So.2d 202, 207 (Miss. 1971). The standard of care of an insurance agent is to use that degree of diligence and care with reference thereto which a reasonably prudent [person] would exercise in the transaction of his own business. Security Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Cox, 299 So.2d 192, 194 (Miss. 1974). The Court holds the jury was properly instructed as to the applicable standard of care for the defendant Batte. Jury instructions are intended to be read together and should be considered as a whole in determining whether a jury was properly instructed. Estate of Lawler v. Weston, 451 So.2d 739 (Miss. 1984); Jackson v. Griffin, 390 So.2d 287 (Miss. 1980).