Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Burnette

Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Burnette

Opinion

 [*441]  Defendants below appeal from an adverse judgment entered after a trial to a jury. Plaintiffs' home was destroyed by fire at a time when plaintiffs believed that it was insured by a Trinity policy issued by the local agent, Davis Insurance Agency, Inc. When plaintiffs' demands for payment were denied, plaintiffs sued alleging both defendants were negligent. The jury agreed with plaintiffs, finding both defendants guilty of negligence proximately causing the loss sustained by the plaintiffs. Each defendant sought indemnity against the other but full indemnity was denied and Trinity was awarded indemnity against Davis only for all it was required to pay in excess of 49% Of the total judgment, with Davis being awarded indemnity against Trinity for all in excess of 51% Of the total judgment it was required to pay.

Plaintiffs' dwelling was insured against fire loss by a Trinity policy issued by Davis, and the policy contained an automatic renewal clause which is quoted in the margin. ¹ Plaintiffs [**2]  also relied upon a rule or regulation promulgated by the State Board of Insurance which is also quoted in the margin. ²

There is no dispute between the parties as to one fact: Neither Trinity nor Davis  [*442]  had any intention of not [**3]  renewing plaintiffs' policy at its expiration date. The record is clear that Trinity thought that the policy had been renewed by Davis' placing it in another of the companies it represented; and, as a matter of fact, Davis' records incorrectly revealed that the policy had been renewed.

Liability of Trinity

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.