Legal Opinion · Dissent

Baggett v. Summerlin Insurance & Realty Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 17, 2001No. COA00-458Published

1DissentTyson, Judge

I would affirm summary judgment in favor of defendants. All parties in this transaction were burdened with certain duties. Defendants had a duty to make an application for the insurance coverage specifically requested by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had a duty to read their insurance policy. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, defendants satisfied their duty, and plaintiffs did not.

I. Agent’s and Insurer’s Duty

“An insurance agent has a duty to procure additional insurance for a policyholder at the request of the policyholder.” Phillips v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Elam v. . Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. Setzer v. OLD REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  4. Gordon v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1961
  5. Hardin v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API