912 N.W.2d 268
Neb. Ct. App.2018Background
- Scott and Karie Hansmeier operated a farm/ranch and used an insurance agent, their aunt Merva (of Western Insurors), for multiple policies; they did not purchase workers’ compensation (WC) coverage for employees.
- On Feb. 2, 2012, employee Mike Heble was seriously injured on the job; Scott’s farm liability policy denied coverage for the injury.
- Scott later settled Heble’s WC-related suit and sued Merva and Western Insurors (Jan. 2015), alleging negligent advice or failure to advise about WC and the statutory written notice/signature requirement that exempts agricultural employers.
- Merva testified she had recommended WC and offered to obtain a quote; Scott testified he declined WC as too expensive and believed it was not required for agricultural employers. Merva said she did not know about the required written employee notice until after the accident.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Merva and Western Insurors, finding no duty to volunteer coverage advice or the statutory notice steps, and that Scott did not reasonably rely on any false information. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an insurance agent has a duty to anticipate and advise an insured about required steps to avoid WC coverage (e.g., §48-106(7) written notice) | Hansmeier: agent failed to advise them of the required notice/signature steps, causing exposure | Merva: no duty to anticipate coverage needs or to volunteer statutory compliance steps absent a request or undertaking | Held: No duty to anticipate; agent not required to volunteer such advice absent request or undertaking |
| Whether agents are liable for negligent misrepresentation for allegedly incorrect/incomplete WC advice | Hansmeier: Merva misrepresented WC necessity/coverage and they relied on it | Merva: she did not give false information; she recommended WC but Scott declined and knew he was not required to carry WC | Held: Negligent misrepresentation fails—no false information and no reasonable reliance by plaintiff |
| Whether this is a professional negligence claim subject to a 2-year statute of limitations | Hansmeier: framed claim as professional negligence | Merva: insurance agents are not "professionals" for §25-222 and statute bars such claims | Held: Court treats claims as general negligence/neg. misrep.; professional negligence not recognized here and would be time-barred |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given disputed recollections and material facts | Hansmeier: factual disputes (what agent said/offered) preclude summary judgment | Merva: record shows she offered WC, plaintiff declined, and no request/relied-on advice re: notice; no material dispute affecting duty or reliance | Held: Summary judgment appropriate—disputed recollections immaterial; no triable issue on duty, falsity, or reliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. Sporer, 298 Neb. 536 (summary judgment standard)
- Lewison v. Renner, 298 Neb. 654 (elements of negligence)
- Dahlke v. John F. Zimmer Ins. Agency, 245 Neb. 800 (insured must request coverage; agent need not anticipate coverage)
- Polski v. Powers, 221 Neb. 361 (no duty to volunteer coverage absent an undertaking or reasonable expectation of advice)
- Flamme v. Wolf Ins. Agency, 239 Neb. 465 (agent who undertakes to advise must use reasonable care; negligent misrepresentation principles)
- Hobbs v. Midwest Ins., Inc., 253 Neb. 278 (negligent misrepresentation requires false info and reasonable reliance)
- Motor Club Ins. Assn. v. Fillman, 5 Neb. App. 931 (insurance agents not treated as "professionals" under §25-222)
- Trotter v. State Farm, 297 S.C. 465 (no duty to advise of employee exclusion absent undertaking or clear request)