Dulaney v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance
324 P.3d 1211
Mont.2014Background
- Dulaney operated a floral shop previously insured by State Farm through agent Shawn Ori; in Nov. 2007 she met Ori to obtain coverage for a new, larger rented building and told him she needed $1,000,000 liability coverage required by the landlord.
- An application (uncertainly signed) was prepared showing $20,000 business personal property coverage and $1,000,000 liability; Ori never inspected the premises or obtained an inventory or valuation.
- Dulaney purchased the policy, later made substantial business purchases, received a renewal notice in 2008, but did not request increased property coverage or notify Ori of new purchases.
- In 2009 a fire destroyed the shop; State Farm paid policy limits (~$21,105). Dulaney sued Ori and State Farm for professional negligence, alleging Ori had a duty to ascertain adequate coverage and breached it, causing ~$190,000 in loss.
- Dulaney did not designate an expert to establish the standard of care for insurance agents; the insurer/agent disclosed expert witnesses. The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants because expert testimony was required and none was designated by Dulaney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove the standard of care for an insurance agent procuring adequate coverage | Dulaney: standard of care is within common knowledge of jurors (relying on Fillinger) | State Farm/Ori: this case involves specialized factors beyond lay experience; Fillinger is distinguishable | Court: Expert testimony required because determining agent duties re: adequacy of coverage involves specialized matters not within common juror experience; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether defendant/other lay witnesses on the lists satisfy plaintiff's expert-designation obligation | Dulaney: her current agent (McCarthy) was listed and defendant Ori testified—this suffices | Defendants: plaintiff failed to designate any expert per M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) | Court: Listing lay witnesses or relying on defendant’s expert does not relieve plaintiff’s duty to designate her own expert; failure to do so is fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- Fillinger v. Northwestern Ins. Agency, Inc., 283 Mont. 71, 938 P.2d 1347 (Mont. 1997) (held expert testimony not required where insureds proved agent failed to procure the specific coverage they requested)
- Dubiel v. Mont. Dept. of Transp., 364 Mont. 175, 272 P.3d 66 (Mont. 2012) (expert testimony required to establish standard of care where professional duties involve factors beyond lay knowledge)
- Newville v. Dept. of Family Servs., 267 Mont. 237, 883 P.2d 793 (Mont. 1994) (establishes rule that expert testimony is required to define professional standard of care)
- Carlson v. Morton, 229 Mont. 234, 745 P.2d 1133 (Mont. 1987) (professional negligence claims generally require expert proof of standard of care)