Insurance Agent's Agreement to "Look Into" Obtaining Commercial Insurance Found Not to Bind Insurer to Coverage for Fire Losses to Architectural Firm. Utah Details Requirements for Enforceable Oral Agreements of Insurance or for the Procuring of Insurance
犹他州最高法院裁定，保险代理人仅口头同意“查看”企业主的设备，未就保险核心要素达成一致，不构成可执行的口头保险或采购合同，因此代理人不需为火灾损失负责。
Harris v. Albrecht, 86 P. 3d 728 (Utah Supreme Court--February 6, 2004) A recent Utah Supreme Court case illustrates that despite the many general pronouncements suggesting broad agent or broker liability, successful litigation against an agent that fails pick up and run a request for insurance is no easy matter. In this case, the erstwhile policyholder, who had a nearly 10-year relationship with the agent for personal lines of insurance, broached the subject of obtaining a business policy for his architectural firm. The conversation, at least as accepted for purposes of deciding the agent's summary judgment motion, involved the business owner telling the agent to place business and fire coverage on [his] equipment and the contents [of his office]. With the agent replying that he would come out and look at [the] equipment. See Harris v. Albrecht, 86 P. 3d 728, 730 (Utah 2004). Sure enough, disaster struck and lead litigation. On December 31, 1997 [several months after the conversation] a fire destroyed the building housing Harris' [the putative policyholder] architectural firm. The losses totaled $1,143,855.50. Harris attributed $940,000 the loss of architectural plans and other valuable papers. While watching the building burn, Harris called Albrecht [the agent] and asked: You placed that [business] coverage we talked about, didn't you? Albrecht replied: We talked about it Ken, but we never did anything about it. See 86 P. 3d at 730. Harris sued Albrecht alleging that Albrecht had a duty procure the requested business insurance. Albrecht won via summary judgment at the trial court. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed. By a unanimous vote, the Utah Supreme Court found as a matter of law that agent Albrecht (who worked for State Farm) had not entered into a contract procure insurance both because Albrecht's promise was limited initiating the process by inspecting the property be insured and because the brief conversation did not provide Albrecht with the minimum elements essential for forming an insurance agreement: time of risk, scope of risk, policy limit, and premium. The Utah Supreme Court appears have regarded it as essential for the agent know whether there had been prior losses in connection with the property as well as the property's valuation; and any other business-specific information required underwrite the risk of property damage and business interruption for the architectural firm. In short, there was no meeting of the minds sufficient form either an oral contract of insurance or a contract procure insurance of a certain configuration. See 86 P. 3d at 730-33 (In the present case, Albrecht did not have sufficiently definite directions from Harris consummate the final insurance contract.) (Also finding that Albrecht's prior relationship with Harris in connection with auto, home, boat, and recreational vehicle policies did not provide Albrecht sufficient information fill gaps or supplement the request for business insurance. …