*1 рarents, adoptive ruled both MH MDH, “easily over won” GWJ.
MWH and sufficiently that it
The court concerned of the Court is
also stated: “If decision
reversed, custody.” will be awarded [MH] per- of the examination record does
Our court was
mit us to conclude district against gender prejudiced
biased GWJ right equal ease.
grounds in this His violated, and
protection of the law was not argument fail.
his must adoption our
We reaffirm rule
statutes, §§ 1-22-101 to -116 are Wyo.Stat.
applicable adoption case in a contested with- regard Wyoming paternity
out statute. no
The district court committed abuse of three of the four
discretion when ruled § factors 1-22- articulated Wyo.Stat. 108(c) in and responsi- of “interest —evidence child,
bility validity putative for” the objections,
father’s best interests weigh against GWJ favor child— nothing justify MWH and MDH. There is
the claim of a violation of the constitutional
right protection. Final equal Decree Adoption is affirmed. Wendy HATCH, III; Hatch;
Frank J. Hatch, IV;
Frank Frank J. J. Wendy III and next
friend for their minor children Anna Hatch; Hatch;
Corinna Matthew Hatch, Appellants (Plaintiffs),
Michael
v. FIRE
STATE FARM AND CASUALTY Garry
COMPANY, corporation; Kitch (De
ens; Murphy, Appellees Dennis
fendants).
No. 95-78. Wyoming.
Supreme Court of
Jan.
Dominique Hathaway, D.Y. Cone of Speight Kunz, (Speight & Cheyenne partic- and Cone ipated only), appeal ap- representing pellant. Timothy Miller,
W.W. Reeves and W. Murdock, Casper, ap- Reeves & representing pellee. TAYLOR, C.J.,* THOMAS,
Before LEHMAN, JJ., O’BRIEN, MACY and Judge. District *4 THOMAS, Justice.
The theme of case is that Frank J. (Mr. Hatch, Hatch), (Mrs. III Wendy Hatch Hatch), Hatch, IV, Frank J. Anna Corinna (Corinna), Hatch Matthew Robert Hatch and (the Logan Michael Hatches or Hatch family) deprived their right collective to a fair trial on their claims for benefits policy; under a home duty fire insurance good dealing resolving faith and fair their policy claim; subjected and were to inten- tional infliction of emotional distress. After this court ap- remanded the Hatches’ first Co., pеal, Hatch v. Farm Fire State and Cas. (Hatch (Wyo.1992) I), they P.2d 1089 jury lost present trial. The Hatches now litany designed -of issues all to establish some deprived error that them of a fair trial. We hold that no there is merit in of their claims of error. The directed for verdicts (Kitchens) agents Garry Kitchens and Dennis Murphy (Murphy), for State Farm Fire (State Farm) Casualty Company on the punitive damages issue of are affirmed. The judgment Farm, of State favor entered verdict, upon jury is affirmed. The Hatches set out eleven issues in their Appellants’ Appeal Wyoming Brief on Su- preme Court as follows: I. it for proper Was the trial court jury instruct on defense was not contained or defined the insurance con- tract between the Plaintiffs and the Defen- dant State Farm? court properly
II. Did the trial instruct fact not to consider the that Mr. Smith, John E. acquitted Stanfield of Stanfield & criminal arson Scott, Laramie, Speight charges though John B. “Jack” even State Farm’s role in * July Chief Justice as of 1996. concerning counseling [sic] an event when part prosecution arson formed Hatch’s
Mr. prior years to the fire at claim, occurred three even Hatch’s bad of Mr. tri- issue in this case? regarding the criminal though evidence trial, throughout the had been admitted al for court X. it error the trial Was though the court referred and even reject attorney claim the Hatches’ for fees trial other instructions? criminal 26-15-124, §Ann. under Stat. it for the trial court to error III. Was protect from policyholders was enacted to to consider instruct compa- expensive litigation when insurance resulting damages from State Hatches’ engage nies conduct and unreasonable claims, coverage the Hatch- denial when Farm’s deny [sic] coverage? of action es asserted cause all the or unfair XI. In view of erroneous princi- it inconsistent with IV. Was case, rulings reasonable to in this is it I for established in Hatch ples rulings unfair conclude that those errors or jury that it must not to instruct the court the stand- are harmless when viewed from damages resulting from the denial award point cumulative of their effect? coverage? Appellees, Farm, the Brief presumed the evidence is to be V. When Garry Murphy Kitchens and Dennis reframe Hatches, true and construed in favor the issues as follows: princi- proper and consistent with the district court should be Whether *5 I in Hatch for the trial ples established objections on waived at reversed based in to direct a favor of Defen- court verdict trial. Murphy? Kitchens? Defendant De- dant Appellants 2. have failed to es- Whether punitive State Farm as dam- fendant prejudicial error. tablish ages? Appellants’ arguments re- 3. Whether proper it under Rule 32 edit and VI. Is light garding damages are in moot the deposition an re-arrange and revise the liability. jury’s findings against them as deponent was in “unavailable” done —as testimony case—and to eliminate even in- properly 4. the district court Whether though objections were-made at no valid the on State Farm’s arson structed objec- the and deposition the time of where defenses. if might have been obviated cured tions correctly the 5. Whether district court objection had been made appropriate an Appellants’ on intention- directed a verdict deposition taken? when the was al infliction of emotiоnal distress claims. involving In a ease bad faith and VII. abused 6. the district court its Whether dealing, for unfair it error the trial was making evidentiary in three discretion the deposition from a 1991 court to eliminate challenged on rulings appeal. “good questions all in which the term properly the district court de- Whether objections neighbor” was used where no attorneys’ Appellants’ request nied for and that ground that asserted where fees. was never raised at time the issue I, underlying depo- was and where Hatch we summarized the deposition taken way: facts in in this within Rule 32? the case nent “unavailable” it error for the court to VIII. Was A fire was discovered in the basement application to admit the Hatches’ refuse appellants’ house about 2:00 a.m. on Au- coverage though the insurance even for 4,1987. gust The fire started in the south- to issues of cover- application was relevant of the was west comer house. Gasoline faith, Farm’s conduct age, bad and State carpet samples in after fire. found the Hatches? vis-a-vis ignition source of was a wood- nearest ease, awаy burning fifteen feet which had In an insurance bad faith was stove IX. a off the floor. to admit hot fire box twelve inches for the trial court confiden- error in gasoline a container legally Firemen found protected tial and evidence of chair, lying edge on its under daughter’s juvenile garage, record and Hatches’ against garage (Cloyd), into pursuant the broad side evidence R. gasoline explanation Cloyd An for how was wall. P. 32 because had died before the Civ. was deposition, Cloyd in the basement that detected trial. At had been family dog gas qualified can over and expert industry knocked on insurance through crack in the contents ran good dealing standards faith and fair in floor, garage down outside base- investigation handling of insurance wall, ment under the then wall into the Cloyd claims. then had identified thirteen basement. which, opinion, in areas his State
Appellees’
special-
industry
failed to meet
[State Farm’s] claims
standards for
ist,
Gariy
responded
handling
appellee
investigation
Kitchens
of the Hatches’
fire;
replaced
testimony
upon
notice of the
he wаs
five
claim. His
was
relied
estimates,
days
investigation
later.
made no
He
did
demonstrate that State Farm’s
any
produced by
handling
not review
work
of the Hatches’ claim
not
did
investigation
participate
Farm’s
nor
comply
industry
standards. After a
replacement, appellee
consideration,
decisions. Kitchen’s
very deliberate
the court sum-
Murphy,
investiga-
Dennis
continued
then
marized and
excluded ten of the thir-
appellants’
tion of
claim. He stated that
Cloyd’s testimony.
teen
court
areas
represented
work
his
his “best and most
Cloyd’s
testimony
beyond
ruled that the
his
conscientious effort”
recom-
expertise
area of
because he had
been
not
represented
mendations
his “honest belief
qualified
testify
severity
emo-
on the
Mr.
Hatch started the fire
his
tional distress and no foundation
been
had
Appellant
house.”
Frank
III
J.
expert
laid to demonstrate that he was an
charged
Albany
with arson. An
Coun-
arson, nor had there been
to him
available
ty
guilty
verdict.
returned
opinions
experts
of other
area
I,
when he testified.
judge out: explanation by the Hatches howof * * * part using good neighbor I think as fire started was not correct. All of this changes I of the standard the standard and testimony properly was excluded the trial appropriate. legal think is don’t in court exercise its discretion. good dealing fair standard upon Relying language in found not same whatever the standard Wyo. 32(d)(3)(A) (B), R. Civ. P. being good neighbor. the Hatches be for argue right also that State Farm its waived questions Cloyd’s de- answers object objections might because the have position beyond industry went standard been obviated or if at removed made dealing in good faith and fair investi- deposition. Parties cannot be deemed gation handling of insurance claims. objection to have waived an relevance They purported provide opinion his deposition. time of the The district court did non-legal to an extraneous stan- abuse discretion it not its when refused provision dard. R. Evid. justification honor this for the utilization of concerning “spe- opinions experts offering Cloyd’s testimony. deposition knowledge” cialized that “will assist the trier fact,” justify testimony. such does- claim The Hatches also error be Cloyd’s opinion, as to whether the advertis- cause the trial court refused to admit into ing established a standard and on how a application for evidence their insurance from act, “good neighbor” required spe- would no They language Farm. contend knowledge, cialized nor could have assisted coverаge application is relevant to under the understanding evidence policy; expectations; relevant determining any of the facts issue. It that, if faith. rule is relevant bad Our *8 properly opinion His to excluded. as policy unambiguous, insurance is the court’s “good beyond neighbor” how a would act was the four of examination is confined to corners expertise. of the realm his contract, integrated evi the extrinsic ruling plain apt of the trial court was dence is not admitted to contradict the meaning. precise. appropriately Corp. court re- Co. v. Ins. Amer district Doctors’ of ica, by testimony Cloyd (Wyo.1993). in which was 864 1018 Further dacted he P.2d Furthermore, more, qualified expert. agreement the cannot be contradicted testimony contrary language the through the of Robert C. Haber- or construed clear Crowe, encompassed agreement simply ulti- in the on the korn and John W. the Hatches of mately get regarding did in evidence the basis of asserted extrinsic evidence the industry good subjective parties for fair of to the standard intent contract. Powеll, investigation dealing handling Hayes in- v. Nat. Bank 784 of American 390 unreasonably admitting (Wyo.1989). agree the court this acted
P.2d 599 We court that the evidence. holding of the South Dakota construing poli- insurance standard for fire relating to The court admitted the records in- cy put the entire an intent evidences evidence, pur- into but limited Corinna into the hands of the in- contract surance Wyo. pursuant R. 105 pose Evid. as fol- v. National sured in one instrument. Orr lows: Conn., 519, Hartford, 50 Fire Ins. Co. S.D. gentlemen THE Ladies and COURT: 513, 744, ajfd, 210 52 S.D. 219 N.W. N.W. being jury, Q exhibit] is ad- [defense the (1928). appeals Georgia A court of has 119 purpose showing mitted for the sole application for a fire specifically held that Murphy had to him what Mr. available part the policy is not contract. insurance during investigation and his what items Hadden, v. United Ins. Co. America part investiga- him that available (1972). 362,190 hold Ga.App. S.E.2d 638 We may in re- tion. You also consider them correctly ruled in that the trial court exclud- may gard any motive that Mr. Hatch policy for ing application the insurance starting the in as much as have had for fire part it from because was not evidence implication there has been an inference or contract. least, that what someone tries save that. from fire reflect The last claim of error with relates to the assertion that evidence any not to You’re consider docu- erroneously court admitted into evidence Q any ments in for other reason. You’re juvenile report of Corinna’s court record not to truth of consider them along report psychologist of a who matter asserted in of those documents. argue examined her. Hatches records were included within the Corinna’s records, prior years these three made purpose appropriately limited and were ad- fire, irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and mitted. subject confidentiality Wyoming’s statutes. argue probative that the The Hatches val- copies The trial court admitted into evidence outweighed ue of these records was of documents that were Mr. Hatch’s brief danger prejudice. They speculate of unfair fire, including case at the time of to consid- these records induced reports relating which com to Corinna about history as a reflection on the er Corinna’s made; records; military plaint is Mr. Hatch’s parents character of her and as a determin- report twenty-five-year-old psychiatric of a ing factor of the that Mr. likelihood Hatch Hatch; poem examination of a love writ Mr. They point nothing fire. started the twenty-five years ten wife to his justify speculation, record to this other than previously; rec miscellaneous old financial clearly beyond purpose the limited ords; coverage; an re insurance insurance for which the records were admitted. We notice; letters; newal a book Mr. Hatch was upon argument. no find error based authoring; and on the purchase information of the Hatch home. addition, profess In Hatches Co., Rural P.2d Furman v. Elec. Wyoming of these records violated admission (citations omitted), (Wyo.1994) we They rely upon provisions statutes. captured relating as to Act, the rule to decisions Wyoming’s Juvenile Court Wyo. Stat. way: admissibility (1994), of evidence this §§ 14-6-201 to -243 Stat. (1988) provides: § 6-3-110 A trial court’s decision on the admissibil-
ity agency be An or insurancе com- of evidence will affirmed authorized pursuant pany there which receives information court unless it is demonstrated that *9 through 6-3-110 shall has a clear abuse of discretion. This to W.S. 6-3-108 hold been applies except in standard to trial court the information confidence when decisions by concerning “adequacy release source of the the of foundation” is authorized the information, by through relevancy. appellant] 6-3-108 6-3- [the Furman W.S. jurisdiction. by competent or a court proving the of that the 110 of bears burden
391 charge concede the trial court the as a in The Hatches consider whole and the competent jurisdiction fight a court pleadings have of entire record from been statute, they argue through the argument jury. goal under latter the Our is to pertinent language identify any prejudice, court to account for failed the standard is Wyo. 14r-6-203, § in which charge comprehensive, reads: whether the is a bal- Stat. essentially anced and accurate statement of made, kept (g) All records received or likely the law that is not or confuse mis- cоunty
by any municipal, or state officer or jury. lead the evidencing legal employee process re- sulting allegations from of a minor’s mis- In objection, the absence of an we municipal conduct other than violation of a apply plain the doctrine of error set forth subject ordinance confidential and State, Hampton 504, (Wyo. v. 558 P.2d 507 provisions the of this act. The existence 1977) (citations omitted): or the records contents thereof shall not be by any person disclosed unless: Court be [T]his must able to discern from record, speculation the without resort to or n n n n n n inference, trial, equivocal what occurred (ii) person The the records concern is * * * * * Further, *. proponent (18) and, eighteen years age under must of a demonstrate existence clear (1) conjunction or parents with one of his unequivocal par- rule of law court, autho- with the ratification transgress facts ticular a clear and obvi- disclosure; or rizes * * * ous, merely arguable, way. not (iii) person the records concern is adversely error or [T]he defect must affect (18) eightеen years age older right some substantial the accused authorizes the disclosure. application order avoid the the harm- * * concept error *. less statute, This which is addressed to a state agency, application had no to the court’s Harwood, 1282, Goggins v. 704 P.2d 1291 ruling. State, (Wyo.1985), quoted we from v. Gore 1384, regarding (Wyo.1981),
We turn the claims error 627 P.2d 1388-89 the ulti- jury instructions. In State Mut. Farm mate consideration: Shrader, Auto. v. Ins. Co. 882 P.2d 831- Thus, unless instruction be an can said to (Wyo.1994), explained we that in review- plainly preju- have caused fundamental ing with respect error instruc- * * * [party’s] legal rights, dice to the we tions, we address the claimed error in both it appeal will overturn on unless procedural and substantive From context. objected during the trial and a procedural perspective, re- substantive proper place. its instruction offered depend upon appropriate objec- view will tion, required by which is P. R. Civ. first Hatches’ claim of error re purpose instructions, is to garding advise trial court attacks the precise judicial nature the claim so relating instructions to the arson defense appropriately by briefing discretion We exercised. asserted State Farm.2 In 2. Those instructions pany, tiffs are entitled to recover INSTRUCTION NO. 7 the defendant defendant State If State Farm defense claim for in other al You property. [******] n unless State are, Instructions, your policy therefore, n preponderance proves benefits for Farm Fire are: ; n against instructed n : has defense, all verdict damage $33,275.00 proven of the evidence. plaintiffs ‡ Casualty must as defined n its arson person- he for plain- Com- from thus not fire fense to the INSTRUCTION NO. fire was Hatch, INSTRUCTION NO. tled Farm Fire and In order to establish its defense of arson to Defendant, policy loss preponderance prevail III. under their incendiary. cause of intentionally benefits Plaintiffs' on the arson defense if Casualty claim, Farm, policy. of the evidence that the fire was accidental and action to started Company the defendant State raises an arson de- Plaintiffs are enti- recover must Frank J. you prove for a find *10 392 incorporated the instructions, eleven instructions the Hatches
objection these to “arson,” prohibited they are from from term policy the insurance State argue that at time. complaining about the term this They only provided two defenses. Farm a third Farm advanced contend that State of discloses an ob- Examination the record defense,” and the the “arson defense called the jection Instruction No. 8 at conference to the erroneously allowed district court says stating, the “it counsel for Hatches third, this nonexistent de- on be instructed [by intentionally J. started Frank here fense. Hatch, say deliberately, I It doesn’t III]. that it can policy discloses The insurance you dump can of suppose intentionally if following circumstances: be voided under you If intend to gasoline, it’s intentional. any you person If or Acts. it, you Intentional dump intend start whether policy pro- causes or terribly, terribly this insured under not I think its house or under this property covered cures loss prejudicial and clear We understand error.” obtaining purpose of insur- policy for the this to be a statement that one comment benefits, policy is void and then this gasoline ance intentionally dump of without a can you any pay other insured we will not or The did intending to start a fire. Hatches trial, for this loss. present theory at the not void you or has ted lating Concealment intentionally [*] toas to this any material [*] you other insurance, or Fraud. concealed insured under [*] fact any or n whether before other circumstance re- or This misrepresen- # insured, policy policy [*] or is if was that the The Hatches’ contention facts do not that Frank J. text of the issues tried. gasoline objection but dog tipped support was not Hatch, did not such III intended to pertinent intend to throughout the trial an gas interpretation. can start in the con- over, a fire. dump not after a loss. policy specifically not While does argue instructions are that the Hatches defense, it does an arson state allude to of the language insur- erroneous because provided only for coverage is “accidental actually impliedly nor policy ance neither (Emphasis physical property.” loss direct They contend provides an arson defense. accidental, instead, added). Arson is not are erroneous that the instructions arson conversely is an act or a nonacci- intentional district court a matter of law because the physical property. dental direct loss on the crime second faded instruct policy provides that is voided when also degree and eliminated the issues arson any person “you insured insured] or [the provisions contrary motive and intent policy procures a loss under this causes policy. The also assert that Hatches policy property covered under this extremely prejudicial the term “arson” purpose obtaining insurance benefits * * have been used without defini- should not *_» jn complaint the sued Hatches They instructing jury. also claim tion $93,- Farm for “the sum of least State * * erroneously implied in that the court these policy coverage 525.00 under the said had the instructions that the Hatches burden language policy, action was proving the fire was accidental order purpose obtaining “for the insur brought Farm. overcome the arson defense State accurately ance Instruction No. benefits.” required prove Farm response states that State
State Farm’s is that Hatches intentionally by Frank J. objections on started appeal not to raise fire was entitled its they III order to establish defense 7 and since did not to Instructions not act. That instruction does object intentional at the instruction conference. State require prove crime or that State Farm points Farm out that Instruction of arson. Neither elements of crime proffered Hatches’ Instruction version of the require any element of motive policy does the argues the Hatches did No. purpose obtaining insur object other than the to the use of the term “arson” Instruc- ance We are satisfied that during submitted some benefits. the trial even
393
erroneously
tion No. 8 does not
state the law
no
make
inferences therefrom. A differ-
in this ease.
proof applies
ent burden of
in criminal
cases than in civil cases.
objection
proper
The Hatches raised no
The Hatches assert this
unfairly
instruction
28,
fact,
Instructions 7 and
and in
an instruc-
erroneously
removed the truth from the
tion similar to Instruction No. 28 was offered
jury’s consideration of State Farm’s bad faith
by
instructions,
the Hatсhes. As to these
dealing
county
with the
attorney, and elim-
plain error must
Giving
be established.
full
acquittal
inated Hatch’s
as a
factor
scope
arguments
Hatches,
they
jury’s
objection
mind.
lodged
at trial
fail to
clearly
demonstrate a record that
was, “I think
acquitted
the fact that he was
unequivocally
complained
reflects the facts
damages
minimizes
point
from that
on. Are
of,
law,
transgression
a
of a clear rule of
prohibited
we
from mentioning that?”
prejudice.
acquittal
Evidence of an
of criminal
Farm
required
State
was not
in this civil
charges is not relevant in
subsequent
a
civil
trial to establish the elements of second de-
relating
to the same incident. Shatz v.
gree arson. The court instructed that
Surety
York,
American
Company
New
Hatches could not recover if
State Farm
(Ky.1955);
395
party against
favorable to the
whom the mo-
first of those is found in
“h”
Comment
Re
directed,
(1965)
affording it all
§
tion was
favorable
(Second)
statement
Of Toets
Cossairt,
said,
inferences.
Coulthard v.
See
where it is
is for
“[i]t
the court to
(Wyo.1990).
granting
P.2d
determine,
instance,
in the first
whether the
proper
only
motion is
when
one conclusion
may reasonably
defendant’s conduct
be re
jurors
could be reached
reasonablе
with-
garded as
outrageous
so extreme and
as to
weighing
considering
out
the evidence or
permit recovery,
necessarily
or whether it is
Coulthard,
credibility.
joined majority jurisdictions when we duty good action for violation of a adopted Restatement (Second) Of ToRts I, dealing.” аnd fair Hatch P.2d at 842 (1965) § defining 46 as the tort of intentional claims, In the trial of these the district court infliction of in Wyoming. emotional distress complete testimony had the benefit The comments to 46 Section advise that family, experts, the Hatch insurance and the whether the conduct is so extreme and outra in entire case chief. We hold that the dis- geous justify recovery as to is committed to only authority trict court not had the but the Further, the court the first instance. duty to make the threshold determination in whether ” ” severe emotional distress can be pursuant “j this case “h and Comments found from the evidence is committed to the § to Restatement (Second) Of ToRts court. Wyo. (1965) and R. Civ. P. 50. The court was required by our decision in Hatch I to principles These are the that we send the claim of intentional infliction of case, invoke this and we first address the jury. emotional distress to the argument required Hatches’ that Hatch I jury submission to the of the claim of inten
tional
propriety
infliction of emotional distress. The
We next address the
disregarded
safeguards
granting judg
Hatches have
three
action of
the district cоurt
prevent
being
which
According
issues
submitted to a ment as a matter of law.
50(a)(1),
when the evidence is insufficient. The R. Civ. P.
must
that
we
determine
evidentiary
provided copies
reports
of some
legally sufficient
there was “no
county
at-
investigation
materials
have found for
basis for a reasonable
* *
torney
prosecution
respect to that
*.”
the arson
Mr.
party
issue
They
Hatch.
con-
also stated
State Farm
consideration is whether the
first
outrageous.
report
from Northern Gas
look withheld
which
duct
extreme
We
was
information.
exculpatory
§
contained
(Second)
46 cmt.
of ToRts
Restatement
d,
(1965),
p.
states:
of emotional
Additional evidence
distress
only
Liability has been found
where the
to an
claimed with
interview
outrageous
so
in charac-
conduct has been
attorney
Murphy,
who said
of Mrs.
ter,
degree,
go
extreme
as to
and so
interview,
present
intimidated her
decency,
beyond
possible
all
bounds
staring at her the entire time. She asserted
atrocious,
utterly
regarded
be
Murphy
up and down
“stared
her
community.
in a civilized
intolerable
Gen-
[daughter’s] body” when Corinna’s stаtement
one in
erally, the case is
which the recita-
taken, causing
daugh-
her and her
both
average
to an
tion of the facts
member
terribly
uncomfortable.
ter
feel
Mrs.
community would
resent-
arouse his
way
about her
testified
emo-
*14
actor,
against the
and
him to
ment
lead
tional distress:
exclaim, “Outrageous!”
upset
quite
It
a bit to think that a man
me
gone
my
I
through
that
know had
testified,
didn’t
respect
to the
The Hatches
drawers,
my
my
things,
personal
personal
Farm,
that Kitchens had
conduct of State
clothing, my daughter’s personal
things,
going
get
you
“you’re not
what
stated
clothing.
I
Mr. Reeves
her
know
made
you’re going
get.” They
think
stated
victim,
light
rape
feeling
like a
but when
required
family
the Hatch
fill out
Kitchens
somebody
power
intimacy
has
forces
who
every
inventory
in
detailed
item their
you
you
if
would never allow
had the
on their claims forms because the val-
house
choice, I
how else to
don’t know
describe
personal property
ue of their
exceeded the
just devastating to me
it.
It was
and it
coverage. The Hatches as-
limits of their
devastating my daughter to
was
think
produced
pages
thаt
this detail
serted
in our
strange
that
man had sat
rooms
day
required
and
time constraint
them
the 60
gone through
things.
they
and
our
And
leave, vacation, weekends,
take sick
agent
had a
woman
the basement who
complete
They
they
it.
evenings to
testified
just
easily
could
have done it
Mr.
while
using flashlights
and dark
worked
the cold
Murphy
I
they
think
did the downstairs.
complete
claims form.
Mrs.
any
would realize that
woman would feel
people
that
were
the house with-
testified
way
having
someone she
about
didn’t
out permission and without notice on several
go through
know
her underwear.
It still
The Hatches claim that State
occasions.
makes me feel terrible.
in-
Farm conducted an excessive number of
family members.
terviews of
“rough time,”
went on
this was a
She
to state
ordeal,”
stress,”
they
“an
were “still under
addition,
point
In
the Hatches
out that
other,”
“snapping
the fact
at each
that it
although
August
occurred
the fire
years.”
really
had been “a
difficult seven
paid
had not
State Farm
claim
end
1987. Mrs.
Mr. Hatch
he did not recall
of October
Hatch testified
testified
they
family
counseling as a
implied
seeking
result of
State Farm
would cancel
Corrina,
policy
comply
if she did not
severe emotional distress.
insurance
Hatch,
daughter
“cooperation
clause” of
insurance
of Mr. and Mrs.
testified
really upset
crying
her mother
contract.
also testified that
“was
She
disgusted
“crying again,”
attorney
again,”
“[crying]
under
who interviewed her
“sarcastic,” “aggressive,”
quite frequently,” and was “under a
oath was
and “hos-
lot of
they
tile.”
also
stress.”
testified that
The Hatches
asserted that
Corinna
she
repulsed
“pretty
[by Murphy going through
complied
requests,
with State Farm’s
Robert, a son
give
copies
of her dresser
of Mr.
drawers].”
State Farm failed
them
fact,
years
they
requested,
had
and Mrs.
who was ten
old when
reports
some
occurred,
the fire
testified that his mother
grant-
Hatches also assert error in the
upset
ing of
and “a lot of
she
State Farm’s
times
cried.” He
motion for a directed
verdict with
punitive
talking
damages.
heard Corinna and his mother
about
argument
Their
is that
if the evidence is
upsetting
the fire and knew that “was
them.”
light
viewed in a
them,
most favorable to
Michael,
brother,
Robert’s twin
testified
State Farm’s conduct wаs willful and wanton
family
members of
having
some
subject
punitive
damages. They ar-
tough
stated, “my
times after the fire. He
gue that the district court
in finding
erred
mom,
emotional,
every
she was
she cried
no reasonable
could find willful and
dad,
my
once in a while. And
he wouldn’t
wanton misconduct in this instance. The
express
mom,
feelings
my
his
like
he would
Hatches assert that a number of other courts
usually isolate himself.” Michael also testi-
have considered similar
pre-
issues as are
“family being
fied to the
stressed.”
sented
this case and have concluded that
resolving
entry
In
judgment
issue of
punitive damages
issue of
should be re-
law,
as a matter of
principles
by jury.
we turn to the
solved
We are satisfied that each
Big
v.
Svalina
Horn Nat.
articulated in
one of those
distinguishable
cases is
on its
Life
Co.,
Ins.
1018, 1020
instance,
facts.
each
(Wyo.1970),
466 P.2d
evidence
was found
to be
support
sufficient either to
the claim
plaintiff
the evidence of the
will be taken as
bad faith or sufficient to submit the
bad
true with all reasonable inferences and in-
question
jury.
Given our holding that
tendments that can be drawn from it.
If we
reasonably
the district court
first,
could find
accept
the evidence offered
the Hatches
that the conduct
State Farm did not reach
as true with all reasonable inferences and
requisite heights
to be described as out-
drawn,
intendments that can be
there is in
rageous, extreme, atrocious, utterly intoler-
*15
requisite
sufficient evidence of the
miscon
able,
beyond
nor
possible
all
bounds of de-
duct
Certainly
State Farm.
State Farm’s
second,
cency, and
did not
Hatches
suffer
conduct
be characterized as insensitive
requisite
emotional distress for a success-
times,
inappropriate
or
but the district
ful claim of intentional
infliction of severe
reasonably
court could
find that conduct was
distress,
emotional
damages
issue of
in-
outrageous
not so
in character or extreme in
cluding punitive damages becomes moot in
degree to reach
being beyond
the level of
all
this case.
possible
decency.
bounds of
Neither was it
they
Hatches also contend that
are entitled
utterly
atrocious and
intolerable in a civilized
attorneys
pursuant
to
fees
to
Stat.
community.
outrageous
Prоof of
conduct es
(1991),
§
they prevail
26-15-124
if
on the
separate
sential for the
tort of intentional
They
merits.
prevail
have failed to
on the
infliction of severe emotional distress is inad
merits,
consequently
we will not consider
equate in this record. These facts do not
attorneys
the entitlement
fees further.
lead a
community
reasonable member of the
judgment
We affirm the
of the district court
“outrageous!”
to exclaim
denying such fees.
rely
upon
Hatches
cumulative error as
We conclude that
crying,
evidence of
a final
contention.
In the absence of
being upset and uncomfortable is insufficient
error,
prejudicial
a claim of cumulative error
to demonstrate severe emotional distress
State,
does not lie. Vit v.
underscore that Other dealing they margin with the behavior counsel. are on the because involve ce- lebrity participants, consequences, severe ex- story mind of the This calls to case circumstances, peculiar or treme inordinate attorney advising a new associate: senior highly attention media emotional issues. facts, you pound on compelling “When have magnifying glass As to the latter the of close agreeable is those facts. When law scrutiny hype simply and the attendant you your position, pound on the law. When society consequences inevitable of a free law, pound have neither favorable facts nor open change radical institutions. Without amusing the table.” It less than unset- process approach our to the trial have no we tling. accept imperfections, choice but to inconsis- difficulty judge had considerable tencies, injustice. occasional But even keeping the attor- this case track and problem emerges, an ominous one that is not neys judge, reputa- focused. The who has product necessary confounding facts or being patient accommodating, tion process. unveiled opinion revealed his frustration an letter exercise, A trial a rational should be where he observed: experience. emotional When counsel inten- It is true that the and conduct attitude tionally drive an otherwise routine case throughout proceed- the pretrial of counsel margins infecting per- the trial with ings job trial made of the and the by purposefully seeking sonal issues or extremely it is also Court difficult. And emotions, supercharge quick- alert observers chiefly true that the difficulties recognizе object ly justice, is not but fault of Plaintiffs’ All lead counsel. victory. obligation zealously The ethical attorneys participated degree or to one tempered by client strife, serve interests is unprofessional another in this opposing, imposing, obligation no less attempt by anyone calm there was little merely within the act limits of the law—not But it was Plaintiffs’ lead waters. letter, spirit, law. constantly every but also counsel who saturated motion, Any every argument every hearing appropriately consistently failure duty personal against duty on opposing attacks counsel. measure to clients perpetuates profession gun” image the “hired Accompanying personal an- extreme *16 lawyers some cultivate and we all must live imosity religious a near fervor Worse, popularly with. it sustains a held itself as a in the moral manifested belief conception professional accepts that our ethic cause, superiority of the Plaintiffs’ and the justifies, the notions that success and occa- depravity moral of the Defendants sionally necessitatеs, excessive zeal and attorneys. This blinded Plaintiffs’ victory Finally, the cost of is irrelevant. case, counsel to the realities of the stereotype such conduct reinforces the of the prevented appraisal realistic evi- of the plaintiff spurred avaricious even dence. attorneys. more venal When a is mea- case spite considerable rhetoric sured, cause, the merit of trials, trials, contrary, particularly evidence, quality of the the logic imperfect justice. engines of For routine invective, arguments, the level of well; reasonably process cases the trial works something is A trial then amiss. becomes yields justice rough practical within such dignified appro- ordeal is neither nor willing as financial constraints we are and, predictably, priate result reflects However, experience abide. that as teaches demeaned, process performance; approach margins cases trial machin- participants. are the ery frequently sputters and oftentimes fails. Marginal highly include cases those with
technical, A complex or facts. convoluted and, given
trial is not paradigm a didactic time,
limits of ex- procedure, resources and
tremely matters be- intricate are sometimes