Hanson v. McCawley, A-15-890

Hanson asked agent Pam McCawley (Silverstone) to procure homeowner insurance for a vacant Decatur Street house after moving out; he told her he wanted "the best there is" and "full replacement coverage" (meaning policy limits sufficient to rebuild).
Previous policies and prior water-loss claims (including an overflowing toilet) existed; the Decatur Street property had a lapse in coverage and Hanson had a history of nonpayment.
McCawley obtained the only available policy from Lloyd’s: a named-perils (basic) policy listing 11 covered causes of loss; water damage from an overflowing toilet was not among them and no water riders were available.
Hanson discovered significant water damage in October 2008, submitted a claim, and Lloyd’s denied coverage; he later sold the house unrepaired and sued McCawley and Silverstone for failing to procure/adequately explain coverage.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no breach in procuring coverage and that any duty to explain was not actionable because the policy language was unambiguous and Hanson failed to read it. Hanson appealed only the agent-related rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to procure requested coverage	Hanson: his request for "the best there is" and "full coverage" meant an all-risk policy covering water losses; agent failed to procure that coverage.	McCawley: Hanson never specified all-risk/water coverage; she procured the best available policy given vacancy, loss history, lapse, and nonpayment.	Held: No breach — insured must specify desired coverage; "best there is" insufficiently specific.
Duty to explain policy terms	Hanson: McCawley said he was "fully covered" and failed to explain Lloyd’s omitted water coverage.	McCawley: Although she didn’t explain differences, the policy was unambiguous and Hanson had a duty to read it.	Held: Agent had duty to explain but is insulated because the policy language was clear and Hanson failed to read it.
Policy ambiguity	Hanson: Policy/exclusions ambiguous (parties disagree on meaning; sewer-backup exclusion).	McCawley/Silverstone: Policy clearly lists only 11 covered perils; exclusions irrelevant if no initial grant of coverage.	Held: Policy unambiguous — named perils only; no coverage absent a listed peril.
Summary judgment appropriateness	Hanson: disputed facts (expectations, statements about "fully covered") create genuine issues.	Defendants: undisputed facts show no breach and unambiguous policy as a matter of law.	Held: No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment affirmed.

Flamme v. Wolf Ins. Agency, 239 Neb. 465 (insurance agent liable for negligent failure to obtain requested coverage)
Dahlke v. John F. Zimmer Ins. Agency, 245 Neb. 800 (insured must inform agent of specific coverage desired; agent duty to explain triggered in certain circumstances)
Polski v. Powers, 221 Neb. 361 (agent not required to anticipate coverage absent insured request)
Poulton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Cos., 267 Neb. 569 (ambiguity in insurance policy is a question of law; named-perils v. all-risk distinctions)
Peterson v. Homesite Indemnity Co., 287 Neb. 48 (under named-perils policy, coverage exists only for listed perils)