Mitchum v. Hudgens
Decision Date | 23 September 1988 |
Parties | Dr. O.D. MITCHUM v. A. Neil HUDGENS. A. Neil HUDGENS v. Dr. O.D. MITCHUM. 86-1466, 86-1467. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
George L. Beck, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant/cross-appellee.
W. Boyd Reeves and Norman E. Waldrop, Jr. of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, for appellee/cross-appellant.
These appeals are from interlocutory orders. We granted permission to appeal pursuant to A.R.App.P. 5(a) because the case turns solely on questions of law. They arise out of a legal malpractice action filed by Dr. O.D. Mitchum against A. Neil Hudgens, the attorney hired by Dr. Mitchum's liability insurance carrier to defend him in a medical malpractice action. The defendant attorney appeals from the denial of his motion for summary judgment. Dr. Mitchum appeals from the denial of his motion to strike and for a protective order. We will first address the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The instant lawsuit is an outgrowth of a medical malpractice action filed in a federal court against Dr. Mitchum by Jay and Carol Scott, the parents of a baby boy that Dr. Mitchum had delivered. The baby was born with numerous birth defects, and the Scotts claimed that the defects were caused by negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Mitchum.
At the time of Dr. Mitchum's care and treatment of Mrs. Scott and the baby, Jeffrey Scott, Dr. Mitchum was covered by a Dr. Mitchum subsequently filed the present lawsuit against several defendants, including Hudgens and St. Paul. The complaint contains four counts and alleges that Hudgens committed such acts of fraud and negligence during his representation of Mitchum in the Scott case that Mitchum was caused to lose his liability insurance coverage from St. Paul and to lose his ability to obtain medical malpractice insurance for his obstetrical practice from another insurer. 1 Mitchum further alleged that he had suffered damage to his professional reputation and had lost business as a result of not being able to provide obstetrical services. The main contention of Mitchum's complaint against Hudgens is that the settlement of the Scott case was made without his permission or consent and that the settlement of the case, instead of a possible vindication at trial, has damaged him professionally.
professional liability insurance policy issued by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (hereinafter "St. Paul"). In accordance with the terms of the policy, St. Paul defended Dr. Mitchum and hired the defendant, attorney A. Neil Hudgens, to represent Dr. Mitchum in the Scott case. Just prior to the Scott case going to trial, a settlement agreement was reached wherein St. Paul agreed to pay the Scotts $500,000, which was well within the primary policy's limits.
Hudgens moved for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. We allowed an interlocutory appeal from the denial, in order to address a controlling question of first impression. Hudgens argues, at he did in the trial court, that, as the attorney hired by St. Paul to represent Mitchum, he owed no duty to Mitchum regarding settlement of the Scott case, because, he argues, under the terms of the contract of insurance between Mitchum and St. Paul, Mitchum's permission or consent was not required for a settlement of any claims brought against him. Hudgens concludes therefore, that nothing he did or did not do could have proximately caused any damage to Mitchum. Dr. Mitchum argues that an attorney has no authority to settle a case on behalf of his client without that client's express consent and that the duty an attorney owes to his client with respect to settlement of a client's case is separate and distinct from any rights or obligations that arise under contract between an insured and his liability insurance carrier. Mitchum also denies that the terms of the policy gave St. Paul the express authority to settle a lawsuit without his consent.
Mitchum's liability insurance policy with St. Paul provided:
(Emphasis added.)
We agree with Hudgens that under this policy provision, St. Paul had the exclusive right to make a settlement of any claim brought against its insured, within the limits of the policy. Most courts construing identical or similar policy provisions have reached the same conclusion. As stated in 7C J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 4711 (3d ed.1983):
(Emphasis added.) Hence, Dr. Mitchum's consent was not required before his insurer, St. Paul, could settle the malpractice Contrary to Dr. Mitchum's position, we do not believe that the quoted policy provision has been taken out of context, nor do we believe that the construction we have placed on it defeats the intention of the parties. That provision is clear and unambiguous and is contained in every standard liability insurance policy. See, 1 R. Long, The Law of Liability Insurance, § 5.02 (1981). Having determined that such a policy provision grants the insurer the exclusive right to settle any claim against its insured without the insured's consent, we must next determine what effect this determination has on the attorney-client relationship within the context of the present case.
claim brought against him by the Scotts. See, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Sanders Drilling & Workover Co., 396 So.2d 1353 (La.Ct.App.1981) (by terms of liability policy, consent of insured not required prior to making settlement of claim); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hitchner, 61 N.J.Super. 283, 160 A.2d 521 (1960) (insurer may at its option settle claims against insured for loss or injury covered by policy without any interference on the part of the insured). See also, Casualty Ins. Co. v. Town & Country Pre-School Nursery, Inc., 147 Ill.App.3d 567, 101 Ill.Dec. 669, 498 N.E.2d 1177 (1986). This is not to say, however, that the insurer is entitled to exercise this right arbitrarily. "The right given by contract still requires that the insurer make an investigation, consider the desires or instructions of the insured and that the settlement not be made in bad faith." 7C J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 4711 (3d ed.1983). As stated in Waters v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 261 Ala. 252, 260-61, 73 So.2d 524, 531 (1953), "[T]he contract of insurance gives the insurer the exclusive right to make a settlement of the claim against [the] insured. That right imposes a corresponding duty raised by law to observe ordinary diligence in performing that power when in exercise of it."
The defendant attorney maintains that, based on this court's prior decision in Waters, supra, he owed no duty to Dr. Mitchum with regard to settlement of the Scott case. He also argues that the policy provision granting the insurer the exclusive right to settle any claim against its insured is a complete bar to Dr. Mitchum's cause of action. Dr. Mitchum's position is that, regardless of the terms of his insurance contract with St. Paul, defendant Hudgens, as his attorney, was under a duty not to settle the Scott case without his express permission to do so.
Waters v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 261 Ala. 252, 73 So.2d 524 (1953), involved an action by an insured against his liability insurer for the insurer's alleged negligent failure or bad faith refusal to settle claims against the insured within policy limits. On rehearing, the Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucker v. Housing Authority of Birmingham Dist.
...Bank v. Jones, Morrison, Womack & Dearing, P.C., 939 So.2d 885, 2005 WL 628876, at *16-17 (Ala.Civ.App.2005); Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194, 195 (Ala. 1988); Maner v. Maner, 279 Ala. 652, 189 So.2d 336, 342 Blackwell v. Adams, 467 So.2d 680, 683-84 (Ala.1985); Ala.Code § 34-43-21 (1995)......
-
Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
...v. Transit Casualty Co. (E.D.Pa.1972), 55 F.R.D. 553; Shapiro v. Allstate Insurance Co. (E.D.Pa.1968), 44 F.R.D. 429; Mitchum v. Hudgens (Ala.1988), 533 So.2d 194; Goldberg v. American Home Assurance Co. (1981), 80 A.D.2d 409, 439 N.Y.S.2d 2; Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1963), 41 Misc.2d ......
-
Teague v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
...467, 30 Ill.Dec. 320, 392 N.E.2d 1365 (1979), affirmed, 81 Ill.2d 201, 40 Ill.Dec. 816, 407 N.E.2d 47 (1980), and Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194 (Ala. 1988), as representative of the conflicting positions taken by the courts of other jurisdictions on this pivotal issue and the significan......
-
Southtrust Bank v. Jones, Morrison, Womack, 2030272.
...Aaron, 275 Ala. 377, 379, 155 So.2d 334, 335 (1963) (Merrill, J., concurring specially) (citations omitted). See also Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194 (Ala.1988) (holding that an attorney is a special agent for his client during the prosecution or defense of his client's case). Section 8-2......
-
The art of risk management for lawyers representing lawyers.
...Insurance Company, 655 A.2d 40, 44 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995), cert. denied, 663 A.2d 773 (Md. 1995). (21) See e.g., Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194, 198 (Ala. 1988); Home Indem. Co. v. Lane Powell Moss and Miller, 43 F.3d 1322, 1330 (9th Cir. 1995); Gulf Ins. Co. v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton,......
-
Issues for excess insurer counsel in bad faith and excess liability cases.
...intransigence of insured). (82.)See Employers' Surplus Line Ins. Co. v. Baton Rouge, 362 So.2d 561, 564 (La. 1978); Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194, 197 (Ala. 1988); Marginian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 481 N.E.2d 600, 603 (Ohio (83.)591 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1991). See also Bleday v. Oum Group, 645......
-
Problems arising from additional insureds endorsements.
...(15.)Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers, 355 N.E.2d 24 (Ill. 1976); Thornton v. Paul, 384 N.E.2d 335 (Ill.App. 1978); Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194 (Ala. 1985); CHI of Alaska Inc. v. Employers Reins. Corp., 844 P.2d 1113 (Alaska 1993); San Diego Naval Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y......
-
Formal Opinion 128: Ethical Duties of Lawyer Who Cannot Contact Client, Approved October 17, 2015
...instructions to the contrary from the insured client, then the lawyer may settle a claim if such action is warranted. Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194, 202 (Ala. 1988) (where an insurance policy gives the insurer the exclusive right to settle, a lawyer may follow the insurer’s settlement i......