Murphy v. Sentry Insurance
95 A.3d 985
Vt.2014Background
- Murphy, as personal representative of decedent, sues Sentry for negligent inspection under Restatement §324A.
- Decedent died in 2004 when a Yale forklift with an unapproved tow attachment toppled while moving RVs.
- Sentry, as Pete’s insurer, conducted an April 2002 safety survey, described as advisory, not a comprehensive safety inspection.
- Plaintiff claimed the 2002 inspection failed to identify/ warn about the unapproved attachment and its risks.
- Trial court granted Sentry judgment as a matter of law under §324A; later awarded costs to Sentry; Murphy appeals.
- The Vermont Supreme Court reviews de novo JMOL and cost award decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §324A(a) increases risk of harm. | Murphy—Sentry’s failure to warn increased risk. | Sentry—no affirmative action increased risk; no change in conditions. | No §324A(a) liability; no affirmative increase in risk. |
| Whether §324A(b) imposes liability for undertaking. | Sentry undertook to provide safety duties to Pete’s. | No undertaking to perform Pete’s duty; insurer role was advisory. | No §324A(b) undertaking; no duty assumed by Sentry. |
| Whether Pete’s reliance on Sentry’s inspection created liability. | Pete’s relied on Sentry, foreclosing safety measures. | Reliance unreasonable; no undertakings or assurances. | Reliance did not create §324A liability. |
| Whether the cost award was proper under Rule 54(d). | Defendant not prevailing party; costs limited to deposition fees. | Sentry was prevailing party; costs discretionary under Rule 54(d). | Costs awarded; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Derosia v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 155 Vt. 178 (1990) (adoption of §324A; undertaking analysis in workers’ comp context)
- Blessing v. United States, 447 F. Supp. 1160 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (undertaking to inspect; scope of duty under §324A(b))
- Myers v. United States, 17 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 1994) (affirmative action required to increase risk under §324A(a))
- Patentas v. United States, 687 F.2d 707 (3d Cir. 1982) (necessity of positive change in conditions for §324A(a))
- Derosia v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 155 Vt. 178, 583 A.2d 881 (1990) (scope of undertaking by insurer for liability under §324A)