The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Agent Liable For Failing to Provide Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Posted on August 31, 2015 by Larry Bodine

uninsured motorist coverageThe Arizona Supreme Court has allowed a couple to proceed with its negligence action against a State Farm insurance agent for his failure to provide uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage at their request.

Lesley and Paul Wilks obtained State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance through the Manobianco Insurance Agency. After two years of coverage, Wilks used another insurance company, and then returned to State Farm a year later.

Agent failed to provide requested coverage

Wilks asked John Manobianco, owner of the agency, to obtain the same policy they had before, which included UM and UIM coverage.  Manobianco did not look up the Wilks’ prior coverage and pre-filled out a form declining the UIM coverage.  Leslie Wilks later signed the form, which Manobianco had already filled out.

Several years later, Wilks was rear-ended by an underinsured driver, but State Farm denied her claim because it did not contain UM or UIM coverage. The Wilks’ sued Manobianco for malpractice for failing to procure the insurance coverage they requested.

Common law duty of reasonable care

Manobianco argued that he fulfilled his duty to the Wilks and was protected by Arizona statute §20-259.01 that “provides insurance companies with a method for proving that they offered UM and UIM coverage to their” customers.

See also: $3.45 Million Bad Faith Verdict Affirmed Against Indiana Insurance Co.

The statute guarantees that if an “insurer provides and the insured signs a department of insurance approved UM/UIM selection form,” the insured has been provided written notice of an offer of the coverage.

The trial court had granted Manobianco summary judgment finding that he “breached no duty owed” to the Wilks. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that insurance agents owe their clients a common law duty of reasonable care founded on an agent’s status as one with special knowledge.

Statute not extended to insurance agents

The Arizona Supreme Court recognized a distinction between an insurance company’s duty to offer UM and UIM coverage from an agent’s common law duty to procure requested UM and UIM coverage for its clients.

The court stated that the statute provides insurance companies with a way to prove that they offered UM and UIM coverage, but that it does not extend to cover insurance agents, such as a Manobianco.

“The statute does not so much as mention insurance agents or any common law cause of action,” wrote the court. The court ruled that an agent’s common law duty to its client to offer the coverage is distinct from the duties required for insurance companies under the Arizona statute §20-259.01.

The court affirmed the appellate court’s decision and ruled that the Wilkses’ could proceed in their common law negligence claim against Manobianco.

The court did not make a determination on the claim, but remanded for a jury to consider whether comparative negligence can be attributed to Mrs. Wilks for her “admitted failure to read the form she signed that declined UM and UIM coverage” despite its “WARNING” directive.

The case is Wilks v. Manobianco, case number CV-14-0260-PR in the Arizona Supreme Court.

Posted in Auto Accidents, Blog, Business Law

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Intel Ordered to Pay a $2.2B Settlement in Patent Infringement Case

Intel Ordered to Pay a $2.2B Settlement in Patent Infringement Case

Intel was told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent-infringement trial over technology related to chip-making.Intel inf[Read More...]
What is Sexual Harassment?

What is Sexual Harassment?

Sexual Harassment Defined: Legally, sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the [Read More...]
Facebook Pays $650M to Settle a Privacy Dispute

Facebook Pays $650M to Settle a Privacy Dispute

WASHINGTON: A US federal judge has given final approval to Facebook's US$650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute betw[Read More...]
Pharmaceutical Giant Johnson & Johnson is Preparing $3.9B for Talc Settlements

Pharmaceutical Giant Johnson & Johnson is Preparing $3.9B for Talc Settlements

Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has set aside $3.9 billion for talc-related litigation, according to a regulatory [Read More...]
Alaska Airlines Will Pay $3.19M Following the Death of a Passenger

Alaska Airlines Will Pay $3.19M Following the Death of a Passenger

Seattle-based Alaska Airlines has been ordered to pay more than $3 million to the family of a passenger of reduced mobility w[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.