Compton v Houston Casualty Company

Compton appealed summary judgment to Houston arguing that the district court erred in ruling the real estate professional who was negligent in an underlying transaction had both professional and personal motives and thus there was no coverage under the professional liability policy. The Court affirmed on alternate grounds. It held that the policy required the covered only actions done “for a fee”, that Utah statute requires payment for real estate services through commission and the brokerage here also paid only through commission and thus the phrase was limited to commission payments and here the professional was paid a finder’s fee not a commission and there was no coverage.