The court granted the agent's motion for summary judgment, rejecting the insureds' claim that he negligently failed to obtain snow-ice coverage for two new chicken houses. Slaubaugh Farm, Inc v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 Del. Super. LEXIS 1144 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 2018). 

    The plaintiffs purchased a farm in 1998 and secured a property policy through Joseph McGowan, an insurance agent for Farm Family. Farm Family issued a Notice of Cancellation of the policy because plaintiffs failed to comply with its request for an inspection of two chicken houses on the farm. After a severe winter in which many chicken houses were damaged, Farm Family non-renewed all of its chicken business in the region. Coverage in the future would be provided only under a Peril Group 4 policy and an inspection of the buildings before issuance of the policy. 

    In 2015, the plaintiffs informed McGowan that they intended to build two new chicken houses and again requested coverage from Farm Family. Plaintiffs also requested confirmation of the insurance coverage be sent to the mortgage company. Plaintiffs did not request any specific coverage. McGowan prepared an application and submitted it to Farm Family. McGowan also submitted a binder request to Farm Family for coverage of the two chicken houses. Farm Family approved the binder request under Peril Group 4 subject to an inspection. A copy of the binder was emailed to the mortgage company.

    McGowan's office was responsible for scheduling new chicken houses for inspection. An inspection was requested, but Family Farm never inspected the two new chicken houses. Six months later, a blizzard caused one of plaintiffs' new chicken houses to collapse. Coverage was denied and plaintiffs sued Family Farm and McGowan. McGowan moved for summary judgment.

    The court first determined there was a genuine issued of material fact as to whether McGowan had a duty to obtain snow-ice coverage for plaintiffs. The court further denied the motion regarding McGowan's duty to ensure that the inspection of the new chicken houses took place. If McGowan had inquired about the status of the inspection, and communicated that to the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs could have decided to continue seeking coverage from Family Farm or pursued coverage from another insurer. 

    McGowan's final argument was that plaintiffs had to show that his alleged negligence was a proximate cause of their injury. This meant plaintiffs had to show there was snow-ice coverage that was commercially available for their loss. The court agreed it was too speculative to conclude that Farm Family, or any other insurance company, would have provided snow-ice coverage to plaintiffs had an inspection been conducted. The plaintiffs could have presented testimony and information on the availability of such coverage, but failed to do so. 

    Therefore, McGowan's motion for summary judgment was granted.