Coleman v. HolecekColeman v. Holecek
Herbert A. Marshall and William T. Nichols, Topeka, Kan. (Marshall, Hawks, McKinney & Hendrix, Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for garnishee-appellant.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and ZIRPOLI*, District Judge.
ZIRPOLI, District Judge.
This is a garnishment proceeding initiated by Robert A. Coleman against the Allstate Insurance Company. Coleman seeks to garnish a debt owed by Allstate to Lawrence D. Holecek arising out of Allstate‘s allegedly wrongful refusal to defend Holecek in a personal injury and wrongful death action instituted against Holecek by Coleman. The district court found that Allstate wrongfully refused to defend the suit and awarded judgment in favor of Coleman in the amount of $323,117.20, including an award of $20,000 in attorney‘s fees. Allstate now appeals that judgment. We affirm.
Background
On March 4, 1973, Lawrence Holecek went to the Lancaster, California, office of the Allstate Insurance Company and purchased an automobile liability insurance policy which provided that the premium on the policy was to be paid in ten installments. Holecek paid the first premium on the day that he purchased the policy; the second premium was to be paid by his father in early April after Holecek had been transferred to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Believing that two installment payments had been paid on the policy, Holecek visited the Allstate office in Leavenworth, Kansas, on April 11 and informed the agent there that he wanted to let his insurance expire when his next installment came due. The agent gave Holecek a form known as RD-42 and told him to sign it. Rather than providing for expiration of the policy at some future date, that form provided for immediate cancellation of the policy. Holecek signed the form without reading it and it was subsequently sent to Allstate‘s regional office in Pasadena, California.
The notice of cancellation was not received by the Allstate office in California until April 16. In the meantime, the following events occurred: On April 12 Holecek received a notice from Allstate informing him that he was in arrears in his payments and that unless he paid the amount past due, his coverage would be cancelled effective April 26.1 Two days later, on April 14, Holecek was involved in the automobile collision which gave rise to this litigation. On April 16 Holecek‘s father reported the accident to the Allstate office in Lancaster, California, and at the same time paid the overdue second installment on the policy. Allstate accepted the payment on the past-due installment, notified its Kansas City office of the accident, and set up a file on the case. On April 17 the Allstate computer verified that Holecek was covered by an Allstate policy. Coverage was again verified by the computer on May 10.
After a trial to the court, the court found that Allstate‘s failure and refusal to defend Holecek was grossly negligent and in bad faith. The court entered judgment against Allstate in the amount of $303,117.20, even though Allstate‘s liability under the policy was limited to $100,000.2 The court also awarded Coleman attorney‘s fees in the amount of $20,000 pursuant to
Issues Presented
This case presents four issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence concerning Holecek‘s conversation with the Allstate agent at the time he signed Form RD-42; 2) whether the court erred in holding that even if the policy was effectively cancelled on April 11, Allstate nevertheless waived its right to assert that cancellation as a defense, or alternatively, that Allstate was estopped from raising that defense by its assumption of the defense of the tort action; 3) whether the court erred in awarding judgment against Allstate in excess of the policy limits; and 4) whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney‘s fees in a garnishment proceeding. Because we conclude that the trial court correctly held that the policy was not cancelled on April 11, we need not reach the issues of waiver and estoppel.
The Admission of Parol Evidence
The trial court held that Holecek‘s signature on Form RD-42 did not effectively cancel his insurance policy because there was no meeting of the minds concerning the effective date of the cancellation. This holding was based on Holecek‘s uncontradicted deposition testimony that at the time he made arrangements to cancel the policy he informed the Allstate agent that “I wanted my insurance to run out when the money ran out.” Holecek Deposition at 10. Because the insurance agent did not fill out Form RD-42 in accordance with Holecek‘s wishes and instead made the cancellation effective immediately, the trial court held that there was no meeting of the minds sufficient to cancel the policy.
Allstate contends that when Holecek signed Form RD-42 he executed a unilateral contract which effectively cancelled the policy on April 11 at 4:40 p. m. Accordingly, Allstate argues that the trial court violated the parol evidence rule in admitting testimony designed to alter the terms of the written unilateral contract. However, the parol evidence rule does not apply to evidence introduced to show that a contract was void or voidable, Prophet v. Builders, Inc., 204 Kan. 268, 462 P.2d 122 (1969); 3 Corbin on Contracts § 573 at 359-60; § 580 at 438, and it was for this purpose that the testimony was introduced. Accordingly, we hold that the admission of the Holecek deposition was proper.
The Imposition of Liability in Excess of the Policy Limits
The trial court found that Allstate was guilty of gross negligence and bad faith in failing to defend the Coleman suit. Accordingly, the court held Allstate liable for the full $303,117.20 awarded to Coleman as compensatory damages, even though Allstate‘s liability under the insurance policy was limited to $100,000. Allstate appeals that ruling.
Allstate contends that an insurance carrier which wrongfully refuses to defend its insured is liable for a judgment in excess of the policy limits only where the carrier rejects a reasonable settlement offer from the plaintiff. Since Coleman never made a settlement offer, Allstate contends that its liability is limited to that which it faced had it defended the personal injury suit and lost. Johansen v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, 15 Cal.3d 9, 18-19, 123 Cal.Rptr. 288, 538 P.2d 744 (1975) (dictum); Communale v. Traders & General Insurance Co., 50 Cal.2d 654, 328 P.2d 198 (1958).5
Coleman contends that an insurance carrier‘s duty is not so limited. He argues that where it is likely that the insured will be found liable and that the recovery will be greatly in excess of the policy limits, the carrier‘s duty to give equal consideration to the interests of the insured, Bollinger v. Nuss, 202 Kan. 326, 449 P.2d 502 (1969), requires the carrier to at least explore the possibility of settlement even in the absence of a settlement offer from the plaintiff.
The mutual fiduciary relationship of the insurer and the insured imposes a duty upon the insurer to make reasonable efforts to negotiate a settlement of a claim against the insured. The appellant, whose agents were cognizant of the evidence in this case, did not give fair consideration to the insured‘s position when they elected to take their chances with the jury without reasonably attempting to negotiate a settlement.
This is not to say the appellant was required under the circumstances to settle this claim for $6,000; rather, we believe it was incumbent upon the appellant, with a claim involving admitted liability and permanent disability, to make a good faith attempt at negotiating a settlement. By taking a chance with the jury the appellant was exposing the insured to potential personal liability for an amount well above the policy limits. . . . Fair and equal consideration of the insured‘s vulnerable position demands that reasonable attempts be made to protect him from such exposure.
Id. at 643.
While these statements were made in the context of a bad faith refusal to accept a settlement offer, they are equally applicable, as the dissent in Rector recognized, where the insurance carrier fails to initiate settlement negotiations in the absence of an offer from the plaintiff. The duty to consider the interests of the insured arises not because there has been a settlement offer from the plaintiff but because there has been a claim for damages in excess of the policy limits. This claim creates a conflict of interest between the insured and the carrier which requires the carrier to give equal consideration to the interests of the insured. Bollinger v. Nuss, supra. This means that “the claim should be evaluated by the insurer without looking to the policy limits and as though it alone would be responsible for the payment of any judgment rendered on the claim.” Rector v. Husted, supra at 641. When the carrier‘s duty is measured against this standard, it becomes apparent that the duty to settle does not hinge on the existence of a settlement offer from the plaintiff. Rather, the duty to settle arises if the carrier would initiate settlement negotiations on its own behalf were its potential liability equal to that of its insured.
In the case at bar, Allstate recognized that Holecek was almost certainly liable for the accident and that it was probable that Coleman would recover a judgment in excess of the policy limits. Indeed, before Allstate withdrew from the case, it asked for an extension of time in which to answer the complaint so that it would have an opportunity to engage in settlement negotiations with the plaintiff. It was Allstate‘s untimely withdrawal from the case and from the embryonic settlement negotiations which ultimately led to a judgment greatly in excess of the policy limits. This result might easily have been avoided had Allstate continued the settlement negotiations under a reservation of rights or had it sought a judicial determination of its liability on the policy prior to resigning the defense. Accordingly, we hold that the district court was correct in holding Allstate liable for the full amount of the compensatory damages awarded in favor of Coleman. Cf. Bennett v. Conrady, 180 Kan. 485, 305 P.2d 823, 826 (1957) (carrier‘s negligent refusal to conduct defense exposes it to liability for full amount of judgment against insured) (dictum).7
Relying on the provisions of the Kansas insurance code,
The garnishor in a garnishment proceeding stands in the shoes of his debtor. Gilley v. Farmer, 207 Kan. 536, 485 P.2d 1284, 1290 (1971). Since Holecek would have been entitled to recover his attorney‘s fees had he brought the instant suit, Coleman argues that he, too, is entitled to attorney‘s fees.
The language of
(I)n all actions hereinafter commenced, in which judgment is rendered against any insurance company as defined in
K.S.A. 40-201 , . . . if it appear from the evidence that such company . . . has refused without just cause or excuse to pay the full amount of such loss, the court in rendering such judgment shall allow the plaintiff a reasonable sum as an attorney‘s fee for services in such action, including proceeding upon appeal, to be recovered and collected as part of the costs. . . .
(emphasis added). Thus the statute does not limit its applicability to direct actions by the insured against the insurance carrier but rather provides for recovery in all actions against the carrier in which there has been an unjustified refusal to pay under the policy. Since the statute is compensatory in nature, Wolf v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, 188 Kan. 694, 366 P.2d 219, 226 (1961), it is only just that the garnishor as well as the insured be permitted to recover the costs of enforcing the insurance policy.
Allstate relies on Bollinger v. Nuss, supra, in support of its contention that
A proceeding in garnishment is regarded as a special and extraordinary remedy provided by statute. The statutory provisions governing the exercise of such a proceeding are conclusive and exclusive of all other provisions of the code of civil procedure pertaining to civil actions generally.
202 Kan. at 342, 449 P.2d at 514. Since the statutes governing garnishment proceedings not only fail to provide for attorneys fees for plaintiffs in garnishment proceedings but also imply that such fees are not to be awarded, see
The notion that the garnishment statutes are the exclusive source of law governing garnishment proceedings has been questioned in more recent Kansas cases. For example, in Gilley v. Farmer, supra, the court refused to follow Domann v. Pence, 185 Kan. 702, 347 P.2d 373 (1960), a case containing language almost identical to that used in Bollinger. Thus in Gilley the court sanctioned the use of a motion to strike, even though that particular procedural device is not provided for in the statutes governing garnishment statutes. While Gilley is not dispositive of the question of whether attorney‘s fees are available in a garnishment proceeding based on an insurance carrier‘s wrongful failure to defend its insured, it does cast doubt on the continuing validity of the passage from Bollinger relied upon by Allstate.
Not only is Bollinger questionable authority for the position taken by Allstate, the very language relied on by Allstate is inapplicable to the case at bar. Bollinger states only that the garnishment provisions of the code of civil procedure preempt any other provisions of the code of civil procedure. However,
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Notes
The decisive factor in fixing the extent of . . . liability is not the refusal to defend; it is the refusal to accept an offer of settlement within the policy limits. Where there is no opportunity to compromise the claim and the only wrongful act of the insurer is the refusal to defend, the liability of the insurer is ordinarily limited to the amount of the policy plus attorneys’ fees and costs. In such a case it is reasoned that, if the insured has employed competent counsel to represent him, there is no ground for concluding that the judgment would have been for a lesser sum had the defense been conducted by insurer‘s counsel, and therefore it cannot be said that the detriment suffered by the insured as the result of a judgment in excess of the policy limits was proximately caused by the insurer‘s refusal to defend
Communale v. Traders & General Insurance Co., supra, 50 Cal.2d at 659-60, 328 P.2d at 201 (citations omitted).
Other jurisdictions which have considered this question have reached varying results. A number of courts have held that a settlement offer within the policy limits is a prerequisite to a recovery in excess of the policy limits. See, e. g., Seward v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 392 F.2d 723, 727 (5th Cir. 1968) (applying Florida law); Merritt v. Reserve Insurance Co., 34 Cal.App.3d 858, 110 Cal.Rptr. 511 (2d Dist. 1973); Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fields, 106 Ga.App. 740, 128 S.E.2d 358 (1962). Other courts have held to the contrary. See, e. g., Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Robb, 267 F.2d 473, 476 (5th Cir. 1959) (applying Texas law); Fulton v. Woodford, 26 Ariz.App. 17, 545 P.2d 979 (1976); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474, 323 A.2d 495 (1974); State Automobile Insurance Co. v. Rowland, 221 Tenn. 421, 427 S.W.2d 30 (1968); see also Young v. American Casualty Co., 416 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. 1969)
While we believe that these latter cases represent the better view, it is to the law of Kansas that we must look in resolving the present controversy.
Allstate argues that this court‘s decision in Rider v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 514 F.2d 780 (10th Cir. 1975) (applying Kansas law), compels a contrary result. In Rider we cited with approval the following passage from the trial court‘s opinion:
“It would be incongruous to allow the insured the windfall of a right to recover amounts in excess of his policy limits from his insurer where the insurer wrongfully refused to defend and where even if it had defended there would have been nothing it could have done to relieve the insured of his excess liability. That is, in the absence of a showing that there was something the insurance company could have and should have done that would have relieved the insured of his excess liability, the negligence or bad faith of the insurance company in refusing to defend would have no causal connection to the insured‘s losses, in excess of the policy limits. In each of the cases the court has examined where an insurance company‘s liability was extended beyond the limits of the policy, the reason and justification was found in the insurance company‘s refusal to accept a reasonable offer of settlement. That is because it is the act of the insurance company in rejecting the offer which is the direct cause of the insured‘s excessive liability.”
Id. at 786 (emphasis added).
We believe that Allstate gives this passage too broad a reading. The underlying premise of that passage is that liability for a judgment in excess of the policy limits will be imposed where “there was something the insurance company could have and should have done that would have relieved the insured of his excess liability.” In the instant case, the insurance carrier could have and should have continued negotiations under a reservation of rights in order to avoid prejudicing the interests of the insured. Although we cannot be absolutely sure that the continuation of the settlement negotiations would have led to a settlement in an amount less than the judgment ultimately entered, Allstate had at its disposal the means of eliminating this uncertainty by continuing the negotiations under a reservation of rights. It failed to follow this sensible course and as a result must bear the full responsibility for the judgment ultimately imposed.