Allstate Ins. Co. v. Amick
| Decision Date | 17 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 61459,61459 |
| Citation | 680 P.2d 362,1984 OK 15 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. John AMICK, Respondent, Donald G. & Sherry L. Phillips, Real Parties in interest. |
Insurance Company seeks prohibition in an original action in this Court to prevent a trial court from further proceeding in an action by a third party seeking damages for bad faith dealing by the company with the third party attempting to negotiate a settlement.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED. WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.
Jim T. Priest, Oklahoma City, for petitioner; McKinney, Stringer & Webster, Oklahoma City, of counsel.
Michael Ray Dayton, Del City, for real parties in interest.
Petitioner, Allstate, defendant below, requests this Court to assume original jurisdiction and prohibit the trial court from further proceeding in a Christian type action predicated upon the theory that Allstate failed to negotiate, fairly and in good faith, a settlement with the third-party plaintiff on behalf of Allstate's insured.
We assume original jurisdiction for the purpose of clarifying certain language in Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., Okl., 653 P.2d 907 (1982) and GRANT PROHIBITION.
Plaintiffs below, Donald and Sherry Phillips, brought an action to recover compensatory and punitive damages from Allstate Insurance Company for Allstate's alleged failure to negotiate and settle plaintiffs' claim against Allstate's insured, fairly and in good faith.
Such an action against an insurance company by its insured is of course allowed in this jurisdiction. In Christian v. American Home Insurance, Okl., 577 P.2d 899 (1977), this Court recognized the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing between an insurer and its insured and held the violation of that duty gives rise to an action in tort for which consequential and, in a proper case, punitive damages may be sought.
The Phillips' are not Allstate's insureds, however. They are simply third parties who were in an automobile accident involving an insured of Allstate, Mark McCoy. The Phillips' brought an earlier action for damages against McCoy and Allstate. In that suit Allstate's demurrer was sustained based in improper joinder, a settlement between the Phillips' and McCoy was agreed to and the action was dismissed. They then brought this action for "bad faith" negotiations.
The Phillips' contend that the principles of Christian apply to them even though they are not insureds of Allstate.
Allstate asserts that the Christian cause of action is absolutely dependent on the contractual relationship giving rise to a fiduciary duty of good faith and that this principle cannot be "extended" to include strangers to the insurance contract. Allstate contends that any future action by the trial court which overruled its motion for summary judgment, would be an unlawful exercise of judicial power since there is no such cause of action.
Allstate brings this original action seeking relief from the trial court's order to produce and surrender its entire claim file regarding this accident for inspection by the Phillips'. Allstate argues that it will be required to go to substantial expense and spend a great deal of time in discovery, defending an action which is not cognizable. Allstate argues that the production order is therefore clearly an excessive exercise of, and an abuse of, the trial court's discretion, relying on decisions such as Cox v. Theus, Okl., 569 P.2d 447 (1977).
Plaintiffs argue that not only can the "bad faith" Christian cause of action be extended to apply to them, but that such an extension has already been accepted by this Court. They rely on selected language from Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., supra, to support their position that this Court has recognized a duty of the insurer to deal fairly and in good faith with third parties. Timmons involved insurer's failure to deal in good faith with its insured rather than a third party, but plaintiffs contend it nonetheless supports their position.
They rely particularly on the following passage:
"Thus there is but one duty to deal fairly and in good faith, which is owed by the insurer to both the insured and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Candelora
...Allstate Insurance Co., 104 N.J.Super. 155, 249 A.2d 18 (1969), certif. denied, 53 N.J. 511, 251 A.2d 450 (1969); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Amick, 680 P.2d 362 (Okla.1984); Cue v. Casualty Corp. of America, 537 P.2d 349 (Okla.App.1975); Pringle v. Robertson, 258 Or. 389, 483 P.2d 814 (1971)......
-
Kuykendall v. Gulfstream Aerospace Tech.
...McCorkle v. Great Atlantic Ins. Co., 1981 OK 128, ¶ 27, 637 P.2d 583. 23. Roach v. Atlas Life Ins. Co., see note 22, supra; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Amick 1984 OK 15, ¶ 14, 680 P.2d 362; Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 1982 OK 97, ¶ 13, 653 P.2d 24. Title 85 O.S.2001 § 65.3 provides: "Every co......
-
Wathor v. Mutual Assur. Adm'rs, Inc., 97,696.
...other's right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking." 21. Supra note 1. 22. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Amick, 1984 OK 15, ¶¶ 14-15, 680 P.2d 362, 364-65. Amick limited the outer reach of the Christian tort's benefit only to those who stood vis-a-vis......
-
Doug v. Mutual Assurance Administrators, Inc.
...other's right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking." 15. Supra note . 16. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Amick, 1984 OK 15, ¶¶14-15, 680 P.2d 362, 364-65. Amick limited the outer reach of the Christian tort's benefit only to those who stood vis-a-vis t......