Abboud v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Inc.
711 F. App'x 773
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff John Abboud purchased Liberty Mutual auto insurance (single-limit) in 2011 and later converted to split-limit auto coverage after an August 9, 2012 call with a Liberty Mutual customer service representative; he then purchased a $2,000,000 Personal Liability Protection (PLP) umbrella policy effective November 22, 2012.
- Abboud asserts Liberty Mutual sales representatives told him the PLP (umbrella) would extend his underlying auto policy limits, including Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage; Liberty Mutual’s records do not fully document the August calls but company witnesses acknowledge informational calls may not be recorded.
- The PLP application sent to Abboud was pre-filled but left UM/UIM boxes blank; the PLP policy excludes UM/UIM “unless these coverages are specifically listed on your policy declarations,” while listing the auto policy on the underlying policy schedule.
- In 2014 Abboud’s mother was severely injured and later died; the tortfeasor’s insurer paid its $100,000 liability limit; Abboud filed UIM claims under both the auto and PLP policies and Liberty Mutual denied coverage under the PLP, asserting it does not provide UM/UIM coverage.
- Abboud sued for, among other claims, negligent misrepresentation; the district court granted summary judgment for Liberty Mutual, finding Abboud could not show justifiable reliance because the PLP language plainly excluded UM/UIM coverage.
- The Sixth Circuit majority reversed as to negligent misrepresentation (and remanded), finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether Abboud justifiably relied on Liberty Mutual’s oral representations and that PLP language is ambiguous enough to preclude summary judgment; the court also held comparative negligence should be decided by a jury and suggested limited additional discovery regarding a recorded 2014 call.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Abboud stated a negligent misrepresentation claim (justifiable reliance) | Abboud relied on Liberty Mutual sales reps who said the PLP would extend his auto policy limits, including UM/UIM | The PLP application and policy unambiguously exclude UM/UIM; reliance contradicts the written policy and is unjustified | Reversed summary judgment; factual disputes about reliance and ambiguous policy language preclude judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether comparative negligence precludes recovery or can be decided as a matter of law | Abboud read the documents but relied on the prior oral representations; allocation of fault is factual | Abboud admitted understanding policy language that conflicted with his claimed belief; thus comparative negligence is clear as a matter of law | Court: comparative negligence is a jury issue given disputed facts; not resolved on summary judgment |
| Whether late-produced taped conversation should be excluded or trigger more discovery | Tape (post-accident) supports Abboud’s claim that Liberty confirmed umbrella included UM/UIM; should be considered | Tape was produced after discovery closed; Liberty sought exclusion as sanction | Majority: remand and allow district court to consider limited further discovery on the tape; do not exclude automatically |
Key Cases Cited
- Delman v. City of Cleveland Heights, 41 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1989) (elements of negligent misrepresentation under Ohio law)
- Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1999) (ambiguities in policy language can support justifiable reliance and preclude dismissal)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (credibility determinations and drawing inferences are jury functions at summary judgment stage)
- V&M Star Steel v. Centimark Corp., 678 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of summary judgment)