Essay Example on Insure-All Corp. Liable for Failing to Carefully Insure AR Homes?

Is Insure-All Corporation liable for failing to exercise reasonable care upon insuring homes within Arkansas/ Should it compensate Ms. Lear Shaunda for the damages caused by the leaking water?

Short Answer

Yes: Insure-All Corporation had a primary role of insuring homes within Arkansas. Facts from the case affirm that the insurer failed to exercise reasonable care. Insure-All and the homeowners must have shared the plan of the subdivisions before deciding to insure the homes. As such, no houses could have been built on fill dirt without their knowledge. Insure-All also breached the duty of care by having an exclusion clause in its policy. Reasonably, the damages were not caused by Ms. Lear, but due to negligence of the insurer.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Statement of Facts

Ms. Lear Shaunda, a resident of Arkansas, noticed a problem on the floor of her master bathroom and immediately contracted the services of experts. She sought the services of a flooring engineer and plumber who evaluated the floor. They both assured her that the damages were as a result of a leak under the floor. Six months later, Ms. Lear reported the matter to the claim department of Insure-All corporation seeking compensation. Insure-All denied her claim, and she sought legal advice.

Discussion

Insure-All Corporation had a duty to insure homes around Arkansas. Therefore, the insurer must have known the engineering plan of the subdivisions within Arkansas. To prosecute this case successfully, the plaintiff must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the damages suffered by availing all the necessary evidence (Owen, 2007). The facts of the case illustrate the dispute between the insurer and the insured. Insure-All entered into the contract with prior knowledge of the nature of the house around Arkansas. However, the insurer failed to exercise reasonable care by neglecting its duties. As a result, part of Ms. Lear's floor was damaged. Besides, the cause of these damages was not caused by her actions (Owen, 2007). In other words, the damages occurred outside her actions. Therefore, in the jurisdiction, the plaintiff will have a substantial amount of evidence to prove that the defendant's actions amounted to the proximate cause of the damages.

Ms. Lear's case is similar to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], where the plaintiff (Mrs. Donoghue), successfully sued Mr. Stevenson. Mrs. Donoghue suffered from shock and gastroenteritis after drinking a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by Mr. Stevenson, which her friend purchased from a cafe (Ehighalua, 2013). The bottled was opaque and had decomposed remains of a snail. The plaintiff was, therefore, unable to see it clearly. Although there was no direct relationship between Mr. Stevenson and Mrs. Donoghue, the defendant can be sued based on the law tort (delict) for the remedies due to the damages suffered as a result of failing to exercise the duty of reasonable care (Ehighalua, 2013). In this regard, Insure-All corporation had an obligation to cover all the damages incurred no matter the cause. Even though the homeowners facilitated the construction of the houses on fill dirt, the insurer had a duty to investigate and evaluate the area on which some homes were built. Insure-All knowingly entered into a contract with Ms. Lear Shaunda but inserted the exclusion clause.

In the Ryland v Fletcher case, the defendant sought the services of a contractor to construct a reservoir. The contractor, while digging, found unused mines, but did not seal the reservoir properly. The reservoir filled with waste, which caused damage to the plaintiff. In the case, the jury ruled that if one suffered damages caused by the materials kept by the defendants, he could sue for remedies (Deakin & Adams, 2019). In other words, although the defendant may not directly cause the damages, he or she is responsible for all the materials. He or she is also liable in case the material causes damages.

In the case of Ms. Lear v Insure-all corporation, the plaintiff can provide proof of the damage suffered. The floor is of her master bathroom is damaged by the leak, became spongy, and was on the verge of sinking. In terms of the proximate cause, Insure-All corporation had a duty of insuring homes in Arkansas. The insurance cover extended to any form of accident or damages. Besides, the insurer entered into a contract knowingly. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, although the insurer had an exclusion policy, it breached the duty of reasonable care to Ms. Lear by neglecting to protect her from the dangers exposed to living in the houses built on fill dirt. Insure-all corporation had a responsibility that it insured all the damages that are not directly caused by the claimant.

Conclusion

Facts from the case of Ms. Lear v Insure-all corporation affirm that the defendant breached the duty of reasonable care. Therefore, the substantial amount of the evidence presented by Ms. Lear proves that the case is weighty, and the court should find it relevant. We hope that the judges will go ahead and examine all the facts tabled before them and make a correct judgment.

References

Deakin, S., & Adams, Z. (2019). 16. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Markesinis & Deakin's Tort Law, 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198747963.003.0016

Ehighalua, I. (2013). Where did the Donoghue v. Stevenson decision come from? A jurisprudential inquiry. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3364679

Owen, D. G. (2007). The five elements of negligence. Hofstra Law Review, 35(4), Article 1. http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol35/iss4