Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carolina v. Cummings, 96-2220 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-2220 Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: (Bonville Farms).respect to a producer's duty. It does appear that Cummings received from Carolina a, share of the premium, manifestly payment for having, produced the insured, but it assumes the point to say that, this activity implied any specific obligations.district court is Affirmed.
USCA1 Opinion












UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-2220

CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

THE CUMMINGS AGENCY, INC.,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Boudin, Circuit Judge, _____________

Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________


Robert W. Kline with whom Lisa M. Fitzgibbon and Kline Law _________________ ____________________ __________
Offices were on brief for appellant. _______
Wendell G. Large with whom John B. Lucy and Richardson, Whitman, ________________ _____________ _____________________
Large & Badger were on brief for appellee. ______________

____________________

April 7, 1997
____________________















ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge. After eliminating _____________________

irrelevancies, unsupported statements and, unhappily,

misstatements, a core remains that requires us to consider

whether there was error in the district court's granting

summary judgment for the defendant. On this appeal,1 the

basic facts are these.

Plaintiff Carolina Casualty Insurance Co.

("Carolina"), a transportation specialist, wrote a liability

policy on Geary and Judith Bonville, d/b/a Bonville Farms

("Bonville Farms"). Subsequently, while a Bonville Farms

truck was carrying crushed (scrap) cars the load shifted, and

for the resulting accident Carolina was obliged to pay

$750,000 in damages. It sues The Cummings Agency, Inc.

("Cummings") for having "produced" the policy, negligently

failing to identify that Bonville Farms carried scrap cars --

a higher risk and an undertaking that Carolina would not have

accepted. The application, on Carolina's form, as submitted

to its general agency for Maine, Surplex Underwriters, Inc. -

- who investigated Bonville Farm and approved -- read as

follows: "Type of Cargo Carried: (Be specific) Produce,

Potatoes, Potash (bagged) and Lumber." It could be found

that Cummings had completed the application for Bonville

Farms' signature. Even in this court Carolina claims that

____________________

1. There is no merit in defendant's claim that the appeal
was filed too late. See Lopez v. Corporacion Azucarera de ___ _____ ________________________
Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 1510, 1514 (1st Cir. 1991). ___________

-2-













Cummings signed, too. Very conspicuously, it did not; nor

was its signature requested. Cummings' name simply appeared

as the "Non-Licensed Producer." Carolina maintains, however,

that Cummings "knew or should have known" of Bonville Farms'

scrap car operation and should have reported it. Obviously

this assumes a duty to inform. The court ruled there was

none. We affirm.

In order to defeat summary judgment, Carolina was

required to come forward with an affirmative showing. See ___

Wightman v. Springfield Terminal Ry., 100 F.3d 228, 230 (1st ________ ________________________

Cir. 1996); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). It showed none with

respect to a producer's duty. The court stated it knew of no

special meaning for the term producer. Nor do we. In the

absence of evidence, we equate it with broker. A broker,

under the Maine statute, is "any person who, not being an

agent of the insurer, as an independent contractor solicits,

negotiates, or procures insurance or annuity contracts or the

renewal or continuation thereof on behalf of insureds or

prospective insureds other than himself." Me. Rev. Stat.

Ann. tit. 24-A, 1506. This means no duty toward the

insurer, see Giberson v. York County Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 142 ___ ________ ______________________________

A. 481 (Me. 1928), 127 Me. 182, 185 (1928); cf. 3 Lee R. Russ ___

& Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d 45:4 (1995), ______________________







-3-













witha heavy burden on Carolinato make a special showing here.

As there was no independent writing on this

subject, nor evidence of a trade practice,2 we turn to the

application. Over the "Applicant's Signature" line it is

stated that the applicant "represents that the information

above is true." As noted ante, the "Non-Licensed Producer," ____

elsewhere identified as the applicant's "agent," represents

nothing.

We ask a simple question. If the producer is to be

taken as making a representation, why is not this the place

to ask him to make it? The implication speaks loudly.

Viewed independently, what are the practicalities

of Carolina's contention? How can a broker afford to make a

study in depth of every customer, to the extent that, in case

of loss, he is accountable for what he "should have known,"

not only about the customer, but of the insurer's

underwriting standards? Correspondingly, no insurance

company is going to depend upon the ability (and industry) of

every, non-licensed by it, broker. Plaintiff here did not;

it followed its usual custom and commissioned an independent

investigation. This makes business sense, both ways.


____________________

2. It does appear that Cummings received from Carolina a
share of the premium, manifestly payment for having
"produced" the insured, but it assumes the point to say that
this activity implied any specific obligations. See 3 Lee R. ___
Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d 45:4 _______________________
(1995).

-4-













At the same time, might there not be an

intermediate ground? Suppose a broker actually knows facts

about his customer that he knows would make him unacceptable,

and knows that the would-be insured is filing a false

application. Should not the insurer have a right to expect

good faith? If some of the hearsay proffers Carolina made

here could be broadly accepted, it might have made out a case

of fraud. See Giberson, ante. We need not reach this, ___ ________ ____

however. Carolina's brief expressly disclaims making such a

claim.

Carolina has failed to produce evidence that

Cummings' status gave rise to any duty. Therefore Cummings

is entitled to summary judgment. The decision of the

district court is Affirmed. ________

























-5-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer