Mathis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s action, alleging that defendants-insurance broker and brokerage negligently procured wrong insurance policy, where plaintiff wanted same occupational disability coverage that was included in his original insurance policy that insured his income as orthopedic surgeon, if he were no longer able to be orthopedic surgeon, but was otherwise able to be employed, where defendants did not obtain same coverage in new insurance policy. Dist. Ct. did not err, in applying Indiana choice-of-law principles, in finding that Alabama law applied to case, where: (1) there was material difference between Alabama law and Indiana law when applied to facts of case; and (2) Alabama law applied to facts of case, since plaintiff earned his income in Alabama and sustained his economic losses there. Moreover, plaintiff conceded that if Alabama law applied to case, he would lose his negligent procurement case, since Alabama law recognized that plaintiff’s contributory negligence would preclude his case where plaintiff had failed to read terms of new policy. Also, Dist. Ct. properly entered summary judgment on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, alleging that defendants failed to pay correct amount of benefits, where plaintiff had failed to submit required written proof of financial losses for each month of lost income.