Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rudco Oil & Gas Co.
Decision Date | 26 June 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 2426.,2426. |
Citation | 129 F.2d 621 |
Parties | TRADERS & GENERAL INS. CO. v. RUDCO OIL & GAS CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Mart Brown, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Ames, Monnet, Hayes & Brown, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
Hicks Epton, of Wewoka, Okl. (Thos. J. Horsley, of Wewoka, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
Two related questions are presented here on appeal: (1) whether bodily injuries and death, alleged to be caused by the negligence of the assured, are within the coverage of a public liability insurance policy issued to it by the insurer, and (2) does assured's voluntary compromise and settlement of claims and suits against it for such bodily injuries and death bar a recovery on the policy which provides "the assured shall not voluntarily assume any liability, settle any claim, except at the assured's own cost. * * *"
On February 11, 1939, the Traders & General Insurance Company (herein sometimes called insurer) issued to the Rudco Oil and Gas Company (herein sometimes called assured) its standard type public liability insurance policy covering certain oil field operations of Rudco. The policy covered the legal liability of the assured for bodily injuries and death to persons arising out of its operations, limited to $5,000 for one person, or $10,000 for more than one person. The insurer agreed to defend, in the name and on behalf of the assured, any suit against it seeking damages on account of bodily injuries or death, or until the insurer should elect to effect a settlement thereof. In addition to the provision in the policy against voluntary settlement by the assured, it was further agreed that no action would lie against the insurer to recover any loss or expense alleged to be covered by the policy, until the amount of such loss was made certain either by final judgment against the assured after trial of the issues, or unless otherwise agreed in writing.
It was also stipulated that in undertaking to investigate accidents and claims, and in the compromise and settlement of the same, the insurer should serve the assured in such manner as the insurer deemed best and expedient and would be liable to the assured only for wilful breach of its undertaking.
The policy contained a rider which exempted from its coverage any injury incurred "away from or off the premises owned, leased or occupied by the named assured" or for "any injury incurred either on or off the premises arising out of, or resulting from, the delivery, sale, or distribution of natural gas."
While the policy was in force, and on or about November 27, 1939, Carl H. Nelson, his wife, and three minor children filed suits against Rudco in the aggregate sum of $63,000, alleging negligent operation of an oil and gas lease by Rudco, which caused a fire and explosion on October 14, 1939, and resulted in bodily injuries and death to members of the Nelson family. After investigation, the Traders & General denied liability under the policy for the asserted losses on the grounds: (1) the injuries complained of, and for which claims were asserted, were incurred away from, or off the premises owned, leased or occupied by the assured, and (2) the injuries incurred arose out of, or resulted from, the delivery, sale or distribution of natural gas, and therefore fell outside the coverage of the policy.
The parties agreed that the Traders & General should defend the suits * * *." Notwithstanding this agreement, while the damage suits were pending, and on January 14, 1940, Traders & General instituted a suit against Rudco, and the plaintiffs in the damage suits, for a judgment declaring its non-liability under the policy.
The Rudco was convinced of its legal liability and was "morally certain" that if the suits were tried the ultimate recovery would far exceed the limits of the policy. Rudco believed that a trial of the issues relating to coverage, raised by the suit for declaratory judgment, would greatly prejudice the defense of the damage suits, and sought to induce Traders & General to refrain from the trial of the declaratory judgment action until the damage suits were tried or settled, but Traders & General refused unless Rudco would agree to pay an attorney fee of $1,000 or $1,500 incurred in the defense of the damage suits, in the event Traders & General succeeded in establishing its non-liability under the policy of insurance.
Meanwhile, with full knowledge of Traders & General, Rudco negotiated with the plaintiffs in the damage suits, obtained an offer of settlement in the total sum of $17,000, and secured the offer of Carter Oil Company, a joint tort-feasor, to contribute one-half of the amount tentatively agreed upon in settlement. In a letter dated March 15, 1940, to Traders & General Rudco stated:
Traders & General refused to agree to the settlements, or to participate therein, contending: (1) that Rudco was free from negligence and therefore not liable for the injuries; (2) that the proffered compromise and settlement was unreasonable, and (3) that the policy of insurance did not cover the loss. Traders & General refused to contribute $4,500 to the proposed settlement as suggested by Rudco, but "purely as a matter of policy" agreed to contribute $2,000 to any settlement made.
After much correspondence between the parties, Rudco through its attorneys informed Traders & General that on an appointed date the proposed settlements in the damage suits would be presented to the court, stating: * * *." Traders & General consistently refused to agree to the settlements, participate therein, or to accept any liability but steadfastly adhered to its former position in regard to the settlements and liability.
After Rudco had paid its agreed share of the judgment and after due demand, it instituted this suit on the policy to recover the amount paid in compromise, alleging substantially the facts herein related. Traders & General answered by reasserting its non-liability. By amendment to its answer it invoked the provision of the policy prohibiting settlement without its consent, and alleged that Rudco violated the terms of the policy by entering into the voluntary settlement over its protest.
The trial court found and concluded that the injuries and death, for which damages were claimed, occurred on the premises leased and occupied by Rudco; that the explosion did not result or arise out of the "delivery, sale, or distribution" of natural gas by the Rudco, as those words are used in the exempting clause of the policy. The court further found and concluded that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sacred Heart Health Servs. v. MMIC Ins., Inc.
...Co. of N. Am. , 345 F.Supp.2d 1139, 1145 (D. Haw. 2004) (discussing Carpenter , 79 P.3d 599 ); see also Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rudco Oil & Gas Co. , 129 F.2d 621 (10th Cir. 1942) ("[B]efore [the insurers] may interpose the voluntary settlement made by [the insured] as a bar to recove......
-
Griggs v. Bertram
...1943); Pearl Assur. Co., Ltd. v. Watts, 58 N.J.Super. 483, 484, 490-491, 156 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1959); Travelers & General Ins. Co. v. Rudco Oil & Gas Co., 129 F.2d 621, 626 (10 Cir. 1942). These obligations upon the insured to turn over claims promptly, to abstain from any conduct that migh......
-
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp.
...be binding on the insurer? The answer depends on the facts and may be "yes." The issue was addressed in Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rudco Oil & Gas Co., 129 F.2d 621 (10th Cir.1942). After personal injury claimants sought damages from Rudco above policy limits, Traders & General, Rudco's ......
-
Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co.
...of Traders. The bone of contention is merely the significance of facts. As said of Traders in Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rudco Oil & Gas Co., 10 Cir., 129 F.2d 621, at page 628, 142 A.L.R. 799: 'Under the peculiar facts, shown here to exist, we hold that the course of conduct pursued by ......
-
CHAPTER § 5.09 When a Claim Arises: Handling of Claims Negotiations
...Id.[238] Id.[239] 22 Holmes & Rhodes, Appleman on Insurance, N.38 supra, § 137.1 (citing Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Rudco Oil & Gas Co., 129 F.2d 621 (10th Cir. 1942); Isaacson v. Cal. Insur. Guar. Ass'n, 750 P.2d 297, 309 (Cal. 1988); Bartlett v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 167 A. 180 (Conn. 1933......
-
Avoiding "bad faith" in settlement: what are the developments?
...A Guar. Co., 516 F. Supp. 384, 388-89 (N.D. Cal. 1981) (applying California law). (20.) Traders A Gen. Ins. Co. v. Rudco Oil k Gas Co., 129 F. 2d 621, 628 (10th Cir. 1942) (applying Oklahoma law); Rova Farms, 323 A.2d at 501. (21.) See, e.g., Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Medical Protective Co., 76......