You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Scarsdale Villas Associates, Ltd. v. Korman Associates Insurance Agency, Inc.

Citations: 533 N.E.2d 81; 178 Ill. App. 3d 261; 127 Ill. Dec. 463; 1988 Ill. App. LEXIS 1781Docket: 87-0180

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; December 27, 1988; Illinois; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In Scarsdale Villas Associates, Ltd. v. Korman Associates Insurance Agency, Inc., the Illinois Appellate Court upheld a $160,000 damages award to the plaintiff, Scarsdale Villas. The case arose after Scarsdale retained Korman as its insurance broker, allegedly requesting flood insurance that was not obtained. Following a 1979 storm that led to insurance claim denials due to flood exclusions, Scarsdale sued for breach of contract and fiduciary duties. The jury found for Scarsdale but reduced the award due to contributory negligence. Scarsdale's motions for additional damages or a new trial were denied, focusing the appeal on damage adequacy. The court affirmed that a broker must exercise reasonable skill and diligence, with damages measured by the expected insurance coverage. It rejected both parties' proposed jury instructions, supporting the instruction provided. The court found the jury's decision to be supported by evidence, and the absence of special interrogatories meant the general verdict sufficed. The judgment was affirmed, maintaining the jury's award and denying further compensation claims.

Legal Issues Addressed

Breach of Contract in Insurance Procurement

Application: The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to procure requested flood insurance, constituting a breach of contract.

Reasoning: Scarsdale Villas, which purchased the Scarsdale Villas Apartments in Houston and retained Korman as its insurance broker, contended that it had specifically requested flood insurance, which was not included in the policies obtained.

Contributory Negligence in Determining Damages

Application: The jury reduced the award for damages due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Reasoning: The jury found in favor of Scarsdale but reduced the award by one-third due to contributory negligence, ultimately awarding $160,000.

Insurance Broker's Duty of Care

Application: The court considered whether the broker exercised reasonable skill and diligence in procuring the requested insurance coverage.

Reasoning: An insurance broker is obligated to exercise reasonable skill and diligence and is liable for losses resulting from failure to procure insurance.

Jury Instructions on Measuring Damages

Application: The court evaluated and rejected the plaintiff's and defendant's proposed jury instructions on damages, affirming the given instructions were appropriate.

Reasoning: The court rejected both arguments, affirming that specific policy terms are not necessary to establish damages.

Measure of Damages for Breach of Insurance Procurement Contract

Application: Damages were assessed based on the expected insurance policy coverage for the plaintiff's property damage due to flooding.

Reasoning: The proper measure of damages was defined as the amount the plaintiff would have received for damages to the Scarsdale Villas Apartments from the July 1979 flood, based on the insurance policy the plaintiff reasonably expected the defendants to procure.