 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Willis v. Allstate Insurance Co.8/2/2005
te acted within its rights as the insurer to deny plaintiff's claims for personal injury to Mr. Willis, as he was insured by the umbrella policy. There is no genuine issue of material fact and Allstate is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on this issue.
Negligence
Plaintiff next argues that Williams was negligent for failing to procure an insurance policy that provided personal injury coverage for herself and Mr. Willis. Defendants argue thatplaintiff was contributorily negligent for not realizing the terms of the insurance contract. We agree with defendants.
In insurance negligence cases, all parties are burdened with certain duties. Baggett v. Summerlin Ins. & Realty, Inc., 143 N.C. App. 43, 50, 545 S.E.2d 462, 467 (Tyson, J., dissenting) rev'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 347, 554 S.E.2d 336 (2001). "[Insurers] ha a duty to make an application for the insurance coverage specifically requested by plaintiffs. [Insureds] ha a duty to read their insurance policy." Id.
An insurance agent has a duty to procure additional insurance for a policyholder at the request of the policyholder. [This] duty does not, however, obligate the insurer or its agent to procure a policy for the insured which had not been requested. Thus, the insurance agent's duty to a policyholder is limited to the nature of the policyholder's request to the agent.
143 N.C. App. at 50-51, 545 S.E.2d at 467 (quotations and citations omitted). On the other hand, " ersons entering contracts of insurance, like other contracts, have a duty to read them and ordinarily are charged with knowledge of their contents." Id. at 53, 545 S.E.2d at 468 (citing Setzer v. Ins. Co., 257 N.C. 396, 401-02, 126 S.E.2d 135, 138-39 (1962)). "Where a party has reasonable opportunity to read the instrument in question, and the language of the instrument is clear, unambiguous and easily understood, failure to read the instrument bars that party from asserting its belief that the policy contained provisions which it does not." 143 N.C. App. at 53, 545 S.E.2d at 469. In Baggett, where the plaintiff did not specifically ask for flood insuranceand failed to read her policy to ascertain that flood insurance was not included, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in her claim against her insurer. Id. at 53-54, 545 S.E.2d at 468-69.
In the instant case, the evidence presented tends to demonstrate that plaintiff asked Williams to procure "a million dollars in coverage should anything happen to us or should we be responsible for anything happening to anybody else on our properties and in our automobiles." The policy that Williams procured provided one million dollars of liability coverage for injuries to third parties, but did not provide coverage for injuries to the Willises. However, we also recognize that plaintiff did not fulfill her duty to become familiar with the contents of the umbrella policy. Inasmuch as the policy states in "clear, unambiguous and easily understood language" that the umbrella insurance coverage "will not apply . . . to personal injury to an insured," plaintiff is barred from asserting that the policy provided coverage for personal injury to Mr. Willis. See Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures of Asheville, 332 N.C. 645, 648, 423 S.E.2d 72, 73-74 ("In this state, a plaintiff's contributory negligence is a bar to recovery from a defendant who commits an act of ordinary negligence.") rev'd on other grounds by 334 N.C. 669, 424 S.E.2d 676 (1992). Because plaintiff is contributorily negligent, we conclude that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on this issue.
Unfair and Deceptive Trade P
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|