Strategies, Challenges, and Answers

Nevada Recognizes Duty of Insurance Producers To Use Due Diligence to Place Insurance Or To Seasonably Notify The Client That The Insurance Can’t Be Obtained

Producer LiabilityVictor Havas’ bad luck with insurance did not start in 1979 as reported here.  He had been having insurance issues long before that.

Back in the late sixties, Mr. Havas owned a used car lot.  Some of his used cars came up missing.  He hired Richard Carter of Insurance Agency, Inc. to find him an “open lot insurance” that would cover his inventory against fire, theft and other losses.

Carter had some success and placed the policy which later cancelled.  He tried again and again the policy was later cancelled.  Carter was unable to place the policy before the loss of a Cadillac from the lot.

Havas sued Carter hoping to recover the value of the lost Cadillac.  Havas v. Carter, 515 P.2d 397, 89 Nev. 497 (Nev., 1973).  Havas didn’t sue for breach of an insurance policy.  He knew there was none.  He didn’t sue alleging that Carter had led him to believe that there was a policy.  Havas himself was an insurance agent.  Instead, Havas sued based upon a breach of duty of an insurance producer or agent.  As the court explained, “This is not an action on a contract of insurance. The appellant is in effect seeking damages for the respondents’ failure to obtain open lot insurance. The breach of duty alleged was the failure of the respondents to use due diligence to obtain such a policy.”

The lawsuit went forward.  Havas lost.  Havas appealed citing cases affirming the concept of insurance producer negligence.  Insurance agent malpractice if you will.  Bates v. Bowles White & Co., 50 Wash.2d 374, 353 P.2d 663 (1960); Derby v. Blankenship, 217 Ark. 272, 230 S.W.2d 481 (1950); Franklin v. Western Pac. Ins. Co., 243 Or. 448, 414 P.2d 343 (1966); Oney v. Barnes, 5 Ariz.App. 460, 428 P.2d 124 (1967); Burroughs v. Bunch, 210 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.Civ.App.1948).

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the finding of the trial court.  The Court affirmed that the Carter acted reasonably in attempting to place the insurance and that he had given Havas reasonable notice when the insurance was cancelled.

Even though Mr. Havas did not prevail, he pioneered the cause of action for insurance producer liability in Nevada.  The Nevada Supreme Court reconfirmed an agent’s duty to procure insurance in the case of Keddie v. Beneficial Ins., Inc., 580 P.2d 955, 94 Nev. 418 (Nev., 1978).  Now, doctors, lawyers and accountants aren’t the only ones who can be sued for malpractice.  Mr. Havas extends his personal welcome to insurance agents and producers to the club of professionals.

About Michael Mills

Mr. Mills practices in the area of civil litigation and appeals, with particular experience in matters involving trucking liability, insurance defense, insurance coverage, premises liability, products liability and defense of personal injury. Mr. Mills is a member of the Trucking Insurance Defense Association, the Defense Research Institute Trucking Committee and the Nevada Motor Transport Association. Mr. Mills is licensed to practice before the Nevada Supreme Court and the Utah Supreme Court. He is also licensed to appear before the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts for the Districts of Nevada and Utah, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Mills has created 3 Blogs for the benefit of the insurance industry. He serves as editor and publisher of the Nevada Insurance Law Blog, the Nevada Coverage and Bad Faith Blog and the Nevada Trucking Law Blog.

Find Mike Mills on Google+