Court Opinion

ID: 9711324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:29:25.132026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.786404
License: Public Domain

MATTINGLY, Judge,
dissenting
Had Illinois Farmers insured Sloan for only property damage to his vehicle, I could agree with the majority. However, Sloan had additional coverage with Illinois Farmers, including underinsured motorist and medical payment coverage. Because Gaumer’s statement likely had the effect of relieving Illinois Farmers from any financial obligations toward Sloan under those coverages, I believe Gaumer may have had a duty not to misrepresent the information he provided to Sloan. As a result, genuine issues of material fact exist and I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision affirming a summary judgment for Illinois Farmers.
Indiana’s financial responsibility statute requires each driver to carry a minimum of $25,000 in coverage. Ind. Code § 9-25-2-3(1), (2). Pursuant to Ind.Code § 27-7-5-2, unless there was a waiver by' Sloan, his underinsurance coverage would have to be at least $25,000.9 Illinois Farmers *586would presumably not be obligated to pay Sloan any underinsurance benefits unless he first recovered from Weger the limits of Weger’s Sagamore policy.
Sloan told Gaumer that he had been injured in the accident, suffering “whiplash and a burning sensation in [his] back, blurred vision.” (R. at 30.) He also told Gaumer that he had been treated at a hospital emergency room after the accident. (Id.) Sloan did not tell Gaumer the amount of his medical expenses. (Id. at 34.) Yet, based on this limited information, Gaumer told Sloan that Sagamore’s offer of $4,000 was fair.
When Sloan accepted Sagamore’s offer of $4,000 — an amount far below Weger’s policy limits — he lost his right to underin-surance benefits available under the Illinois Farmers’ policy. He also lost his right to recover any medical payment benefits, as by settling with Sagamore, he foreclosed Illinois Farmers’ right of subro-gation. As a result, Gaumer’s representation to Sloan that $4,000 was a fair settlement amount likely resulted in a direct benefit to Illinois Farmers.
In determining whether a duty exists, we balance three factors: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) public policy concerns. Roe v. North Adams Community Sch. Corp., 647 N.E.2d 655, 659 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). This test is applied to determine whether an insurer has a duty to its insured. See Midwest Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Stroup, 706 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (addressing insurer’s duty to deal with its insured in good faith).
In Eby, we recognized an action for negligent representation by an employer to an employee, though we did not expressly limit the availability of that cause of action to parties in such a relationship. We relied on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552, which recognizes an action for negligent misrepresentation when “[o]ne who, in the course of his business, profession, or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions” (emphasis supplied) and when the other justifiably relies on the information and suffers pecuniary loss as a result of such reliance.
I believe the relationship between the insurer and the insured in the circumstances of the case before us is one which might give rise to a duty on the part of the insurer to provide accurate information. ■As explained above, Illinois Farmers likely had a pecuniary interest in providing false information which would encourage Sloan to accept the Sagamore settlement offer; Sloan’s acceptance of the settlement may have relieved Illinois Farmers of substantial financial obligations it could otherwise incur by virtue of Sloan’s underinsurance and medical payments coverage. As a result of his reliance on Gaumer’s information, Sloan would suffer a pecuniary loss corresponding to Illinois Farmers’ benefit.
Because the availability of the tort of negligent misrepresentation is not so restricted as the majority suggests, I believe there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether, when Gaumer made the representation to Sloan that Sagamore’s offer was fair, Illinois Farmers had any potential underinsurance liability to Sloan.10 More specifically, if both Sloan and Weger’s policy limits were $25,000, then it is possible that Sloan could never recover underinsurance benefits from Illinois Farmers.11 If, however, Weger’s policy *587limit was $25,000 and Sloan’s underinsurance policy limit was higher than $25,000, then, provided, that Sloan’s injuries and damages were more than $25,000 and he obtained Weger’s policy limits from Saga-more, Illinois Farmers could have been liable for underinsurance benefits.12 Further, since we are not aware of the amount of Sloan’s medical bills, Illinois Farmers could have been liable to Sloan for additional medical payment benefits. However, as a result of Sloan’s reliance on Gau-mer’s representations, Illinois Farmers was relieved from any potential liability to Sloan for underinsurance benefits and further medical payments benefits.
I would reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

. The Record does not reflect Sloan’s actual policy limits.

. An insurer has a duty to deal with its insured in good faith, and there is a cause of action for the tortious breach of that duty. Erie Ins. Co. v. Hickman, 622 N.E.2d 515, 519 (Ind.1993). The insurer’s obligation of good faith and fair dealing includes an obligation to refrain from deceiving the insured. Id.

. Typically, a person, has to recover the per person policy limit, in this case $25,000, before being entitled to claim underinsurance benefits under his or her own policy. However, where, as in this case, there were more than two people involved in the accident, Sloan may not have had to recover the entire *587$25,000 from Sagamore in order to be eligible for underinsurance benefits, as the total paid to all injured parties may have been the $50,000 occurrence policy limit.

. The Record does not reflect the amount of Sloan’s medical bills, the extent of his injuries, whether he received any additional medical treatment, or whether his injuries resulted in any permanent disability. The Record also does not reflect whether Sloan had other damages, such as lost income, as a result of injuries received in the automobile accident.