The insured's inability to present evidence of an agent's standard of professional care meant it could not succeed on a claim for failure to procure adequate coverage for damage to vacant property. Rayfield Pro., LLC v. Business Insurers of the Carolinas, Inc., 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 1429 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012).
A policy issued by Traveler's covered the insured's vacant lot. The policy covered loss or damage resulting from causes such as lightening, fire, wind, storm, riot, etc. without limitation for vacancy. An express limitation, however, excluded coverage of loss or damage resulting from theft or vandalism if the building had been vacant for more than sixty consecutive days prior to the loss or damage.
The agent's employee inquired about whether the property was still vacant in order to determine whether better policy pricing was available. The agent was informed the property was still vacant.
Subsequently, the property was vandalized and irreparably damaged. A claim was submitted to Travelers, but was denied because the property had been vacant for sixty days prior to the incident.
The insured sued, but the agent was granted summary judgment by the trial court.
The appellate court affirmed. The agent was required to use reasonable skill, care and diligence to procure insurance. An agent was liable for loss proximately caused by the negligent failure to do so. The agent did not have a duty to advise of other types of insurance coverage for which the insured was eligible, if that information was not requested. Further, an insurance agent had no legal duty to explain the meaning and effect of all provisions in a policy. However, such a duty could arise where specific coverage was requested.
Here, the insured presented no evidence that it requested vacancy coverage specifically for theft. Therefore, the agent was under no duty to inform the insured of the exact provisions of the policy.
