Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco, 352 P.3d 912

Background

Lesley Wilks previously had State Farm insurance with liability, UM and UIM; she later returned to State Farm through agent John Manobianco and asked for “the exact same coverage.”
Manobianco did not verify prior coverage and procured a State Farm policy that omitted UIM; he prepared and Wilks signed the DOI-approved form rejecting UIM.
Wilks was later injured by an underinsured driver; State Farm denied her UIM claim, and the Wilkses sued Manobianco for professional negligence (failure to procure requested UIM coverage).
Manobianco moved for summary judgment, arguing compliance with A.R.S. § 20‑259.01 (insurer’s offer via DOI form) absolved him of liability; the trial court granted summary judgment for Manobianco.
The court of appeals reversed, holding agents owe a common‑law duty of reasonable care and § 20‑259.01 does not abolish that duty; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: § 20‑259.01 governs insurers’ statutory method for proving an offer of UM/UIM via DOI form but does not bar common‑law negligence claims against agents for failing to procure requested coverage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.R.S. § 20‑259.01 bars a negligence claim against an insurance agent for failing to procure requested UIM coverage	Wilks: § 20‑259.01 does not bar agent negligence claims; agent breached duty by not procuring requested coverage	Manobianco: compliance with § 20‑259.01 (insurer’s DOI form) creates a safe harbor that precludes such claims	Held: Statute does not bar agent negligence claims; agent duty remains under common law
Whether the statute’s language (protecting “insurers”) should be read to include insurance agents	Wilks: statute speaks to insurers only; no express legislative intent to include agents	Manobianco: “insurer” necessarily includes agents; otherwise statute would be ineffective	Held: Plain text covers only insurers; courts will not add agents absent explicit legislative language
Effect of Wilks signing the DOI‑approved rejection form on agent liability and causation	Wilks: signing the form does not resolve whether agent failed to procure coverage or whether Wilks was contributorily negligent	Manobianco: Wilks’ signature proves rejection and defeats claim	Held: Plaintiff’s failure to read the form can be considered by the jury for comparative negligence; signature limits insurer‑offer inquiries but does not resolve agent breach
Whether compliance with § 20‑259.01 can be used as evidence of reasonableness	Wilks: agent’s compliance is relevant but not dispositive	Manobianco: compliance proves no breach as a matter of law	Held: Compliance is admissible evidence of reasonable conduct but does not preclude fact questions for the jury

Key Cases Cited

Darner Motor Sales v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 140 Ariz. 383 (1984) (establishes agents’ common‑law duty of reasonable care)
Ballesteros v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wis., 226 Ariz. 345 (2011) (DOI‑approved selection/rejection form satisfies insurer’s statutory offer requirement)
Webb v. Gittlen, 217 Ariz. 363 (2008) (reaffirms agent duty of reasonable care)
Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, LLC v. Noder, 236 Ariz. 180 (2015) (statutory preemption of common law requires clear legislative statement)
Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (2007) (questions of contributory negligence and reasonableness are for the trier of fact)
Newman v. Cornerstone Nat’l Ins. Co., 237 Ariz. 35 (2015) (declines to expand § 20‑259.01 beyond insurers)