Opinion ID: 2082309
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vicnire v. Ford Life

Text: In response to specific interrogatories, the jury found that defendant Ford life was liable to plaintiff on a contract for credit disability insurance on the basis of two distinct legal theories. First, the jury found that James Murray, acting as an agent of Ford Life, told plaintiff that his disability would be covered by the policy, thereby estopping Ford Life from denying liability regardless of the express terms of the contract. And, second, the jury found that defendant was liable to plaintiff under the express terms of the contract. Either theory standing alone would be sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. Because we find that the jury's verdict may be sustained on the estoppel theory, we do not consider defendant's contention that the presiding justice's instruction and certain factual findings of the jury regarding the interpretation and application of the credit disability insurance contract were erroneous. Defendant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that Ford Life's agent told plaintiff that his disability would be covered by the policy. We disagree. On direct examination, plaintiff was asked: Did Mr. Murray [Ford Life's agent] ever tell you that it didn't cover any illnesses or injuries that occurred before you bought the car? Plaintiff replied: He told me that covered me if I even walked right out the door and fell down and broke a leg, I was covered.. . . He said a total disability, he said I was covered for it. Although the plaintiff's response is susceptible to conflicting interpretations, it was well within the province of the jury to resolve the ambiguity in favor of plaintiff and to conclude that Ford Life's agent told plaintiff that his disability would be covered by the policy. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment awarding plaintiff $2,904.42 in damages against defendant Ford Life.