This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Darner (P) held liability insurance with Universal (D). The first policy was for a universal u-drive policy. P had insurance with Travelers, and the balance of P’s insurance continued with Travelers at the time the first policy was written by D for P. In April 1975, D picked up the entire insurance package for D’s various business activities. When P contracted with D for all his needs, he was assured that D's agent that the policy would be the same as the prior coverage from Travelers. When P received the new umbrella policy, he questioned certain aspects of the coverage but was assured by D's agent that the umbrella policy would increase the 15/30 coverage to 100/300. After these conversations, D did receive a copy of the umbrella policy, and it was quite lengthy and forbidding. D admits never reading it and claims it was like reading a book and that following his conversations with the agent he didn’t think that reading it was necessary. A car was rented to Dwayne Crawford twenty months later, and the rental agreement that was used was an old type that covered Dwayne for 100/300. Dwayne was in an accident and claimed the 100/300 limit. Universal was unwilling to supply coverage over the $15,000 limit. Dwayne sued P and P sued D. The pedestrian recovered $60,000. D paid over the $15,000 and refused to pay more and P claimed the rest was due from D under estoppel, reformation, negligence, and fraud. After discovery D moved for a summary judgment. The motion was granted, and P appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed because an insurer who had received a copy of an unambiguous policy could not expand the insurer's liability beyond the terms of the policy issued.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.