The issue in this next case is pretty straightforward, but the outcome is anything but that. A contractor has an accident but he doesn't have the right insurance coverage. So he sues his insurance agent for not placing the right coverage. The contractor loses the case against Farm Bureau because the insurance agent has no legal duty to select coverages. What we have is the insurance industry saying one thing and doing another. Watch the video of the Farm Bureau commericals and ask yourself if they hold themselves out to be experts on what you need for insurance coverage. Does FB say they offer expert advice?  Then consider the decision in Merriam that says they don't have a duty to do so because they aren't experts in selecting insurance coverage. Isn't that exactly how FB holds it'self out? You be the judge.

What about that "knowledge you can count on" pledge? After Merriam it sure seems to ring hollow.

Remember those Farm Bureau agents saying they make insurance simple? Here get caught up and listen to the agents telling you how simple they make insurance so you can feel good about your future; and then there is the make simple by providing knowledge you can count on. As you listen ask yourself if somewhere in there, there is a promise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFMnwpw-LLg

Here listen again to the Farm Bureau insurance made simple pledge and then let’s see how it plays out in real life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4DHSGeuQQE

Remember what you just heard. Come on it's all pretty simple to remember. Basically you can trust us to make it simple for you. Got it?

The case is Merriam vs Farm Bureau Insurance Services, Docket No. 08-1635 from the Iowa Supreme Court. The Insurance Journal talks about this decision. Does an insurance agent owe a duty the insured when making your insurance decisions simple? Get ready because this is where the disconnect between reality and the law. We need not wonder why they hate us, we need only look at what we say and what we do.

I argued this same issue in the early 80’s and it came out the same then. After you read the issue and the result, like me you’ll wonder why they call insurance sales a profession. Used car salesmen have a higher duty to the public than do insurance salespeople. Their only duty is to hand you an application, to bind the insurance when asked or instructed and to fax the application to the insurance company. Beyond that their days are taken up with saying “No”, cashing checks, buying plane tickets to insurance conferences and playing golf.

The Iowa Supreme Court has sided with an insurance agent in a case involving whether or not the agent had a duty to advise his clients as to the need for insurance coverage about which the clients had not inquired.

In considering an appeal brought by plaintiffs Timothy L. Merriam and Justine Merriam against their insurance agent, Steven Stonehocker, the high court affirmed a decision by a lower court that determined Stonehocker had not “breached his duty of care to act as a reasonably prudent insurance agent when he failed to advise and recommend that Timothy Merriam, a self-employed over-the-road truck driver, procure self-employment workers’ compensation insurance.”

“The plaintiffs contend Stonehocker‟s knowledge of Timothy‟s self-employed status and million dollar life insurance policy was sufficient to trigger a duty of inquiry on Stonehocker‟s part. The fact that Stonehocker was a trained and licensed insurance agent with arguably “superior knowledge as to what insurance products someone in [Timothy‟s] position would require to be adequately protected from injury or loss” cannot be the basis to find an implied agreement to expand Stonehocker‟s duty. If that were the case, then every trained and licensed insurance agent would have a duty to provide an assessment of all of an insureds‟ insurance needs, whether requested or not. As previously discussed, we have never held this to be the law in this state. Under the principles set forth in Langwith, the plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact exists that there was an expanded agency agreement requiring Stonehocker to advise the plaintiffs regarding self-employment workers‟ compensation insurance for Timothy. Because Stonehocker is not liable to the plaintiffs, Farm Bureau cannot be vicariously liable. The district court‟s ruling granting the defendants‟ motion for summary judgment is affirmed.2”

What happened to it being so simple? So if this is true then are we still in good hands and good neighbors of you know who?

Follow the link to read the decision. Citation: Merriam vs Farm Bureau Insurance Services, No. 08-1635 (Iowa 2011) Combatants (Attorneys): Marc Humphrey for the appellants and Brian Campbell for Appellees. Go Marc! Justice Cady wrote the decision. Lower court decision Affirmed. Ouch!

I wonder if Mr. and Mrs. Merriam wanted to be the buffalo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRS4shfH1Pw

Iowa Supreme Court: Agent not Required to Suggest Unrequested Coverage
Insurance Journal
The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with that assertion. “The Merriams made no specific inquiry with respect to self-employed workers' compensation insurance ...
See all stories on this topic »

Sorry Charlie! Me no comprehend?