LELA SPARKS, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF STELLA K. SPARKS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RACK SERVICE COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT, RACK SERVICE MERCHANDISERS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a settlement agreement procured by fraud and misrepresentation by an insurer's claims adjuster concerning Alabama law could be set aside.
Plaintiff sued for wrongful death after a settlement agreement with the defendant's insurer. Plaintiff alleged the settlement was procured by fraud an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misrepresentation Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff-appellee entered on a jury verdict in a wrongful death diversity action. Appellant’s principal defense was that a settlement agreement between its insurer and the plaintiff barred further recovery. Plaintiff’s theory was that the settlement had been procured by fraud and misrepresentation, and thus should be set aside.
The evidence as to whether insurer’s claims adjuster misrepresented Alabama law was conflicting, but was sufficient to have been submitted to the jury. See Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F. 2d 365, 374. Thus we need inquire only whether the case is governed by Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Warten, 1897, 113 Ala. 479, 22 So. 288, which held that as a general rule a contract will not be vitiated by misrepresentations of matters of law, at least when made to an adversary party. In a subsequent case the Alabama Court of Appeals has recognized that this rule will not protect a contract where the misrepresenter is an attorney,
, “or some person whose work infers special knowledge inviting confidence. Such person is presumed to possess superior knowledge, and where the other party, a layman, is unlearned in such field, the layman is justified in relying upon the representations of the specialist.”
Bank of Loretto v. Bobo, 1953, 37 Ala. App. 139, 67 So. 2d 77, 85-86, writ to Ala.Sup.Ct. den., 259 Ala. 374, 67 So. 2d 90.
We think this case is squarely within Loretto. Here the misrepresenter was a claims adjuster dealing with a woman of little education and no legal or claims experience. The alleged misrepresentations concerned the maximum recovery available in Alabama for wrongful death, and the effect of a higher settle^ ment on amounts available to cover other claims arising from the same accident. These being matters within the claims adjuster’s specialty, the jury could properly find that, appellee’s reliance was justified.
We find no merit on the other issues raised by appellant.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dominick v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 809 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1987)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- The Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)