Harriet Maloof and John A. Maloof, Jr. v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company and Parker A. Glasgow.

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for John Hancock and Glasgow on the Maloofs' fraud, suppression, negligent or wanton failure-to-procure, and fiduciary-duty claims. It held that the policy documents contradicted or qualified the alleged representations, making reliance unreasonable as a matter of law; that Glasgow procured the requested insurance, which lapsed only after the Maloofs declined required additional premiums; and that the evidence did not establish a fiduciary relationship. Chief Justice Cobb, dissenting, would have reversed because the evidence created fact questions concerning reasonable reliance, the policies' clarity, and Glasgow's long-term relationship with the Maloofs.