Court Opinion

ID: 9673150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:07:17.72071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.409381
License: Public Domain

Ernie E. Wright, Chief Judge, dissenting. I disagree with the majority opinion upholding the decree of the trial court awarding judgment against appellant for the fire loss. The real estate had been sold to appellee McCurdy through appellant as broker for the sellers. The contract of sale clearly stated, “Buyer agrees to assume seller’s insurance payments from date as above written and be responsible for the property as of same date.” The date of the contract referred to was September 20, 1977. At closing on September 23, 1977 a sales agent for the broker handed the buyer an insurance policy. She testified she told the buyer, “This is your insurance policy. — I told the lady I thought the insurance was paid up.” The policy carried the names of the sellers as the insured with a mortgage clause in favor of the broker who held a mortgage against the property .The buyer’s name did not appear in the policy and the policy term was from October 21, 1977 to October 21, 1978. The house burned in February, 1978, and the policy had been cancelled prior to the loss for nonpayment of premium. In my view the buyer had a contractual duty to see that insurance coverage was in effect on the property from the date of closing. She did not contact the local insurance agent who issued the policy. She did not check to see if her name appeared in the policy and she was provided no receipt or documentary evidence showing the premium had been paid on the policy that was to take effect some weeks subsequent to closing. The record does not reveal any deliberate attempt on the part of any one to deceive the appellee as to the insurance. The appellee failed to act in a reasonably prudent way-to see that insurance was in effect and the insurance requirement met. There is no ambiguity in the provision in the contract requiring the buyer to pay the insurance premium and be responsible for the property as of the contract date, September 20, 1977. The trial court held as a matter of law the appellant broker had a fiduciary duty to the appellee buyer. It is undisputed appellant was agent for the seller and there is no evidence he charged appellee McCurdy for servies either as a broker or attorney. I see no basis for the conclusion appellant had a fiduciary duty to appellee. He was only required to deal fairly with appellee, and there is no evidence he did otherwise. I would reverse, and am authorized to state that Newbern, J., joins in this dissent.