Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the out-of-pocket rule does not raise “a question of what the plaintiff might have gained through the transaction but what was lost by reason of defendant’s deception.”
• finding coverage where agent misrepresented to widow the type and amount of coverage on a policy and she relied on the agent's expertise
• finding coverage where agent misrepresented to widow the type and amount of coverage on a policy and she relied on the agent’s expertise
• person with “no special competence or expertise in insurance matters” was justified in relying on insurance agent’s interpretation of terms of policy
• where insurance agent misrepresented that plaintiff had life insurance policy rather than annuity, plaintiff recovered value of proceeds rather than merely premiums
• “All the cases applying the rule to date have involved misrepresentations in the sale of goods, the sale of real property, or the procuring of leases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).