Cathcart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 2005
• Docket Number: No. 05-43.,05-43.
• Citation: 123 P.3d 579,2005 WY 154
• Parties: Carly Mesa CATHCART, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

123 P.3d 579

2005 WY 154

Carly Mesa CATHCART, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 05-43.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

December 1, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Representing Appellant: Terry W. Mackey of Moriarity, Gooch, Badaruddin & Booke, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Todd H. Hambrick and Stephanie A. Hambrick of Krampner, Fuller & Hambrick, Casper, Wyoming; Shawna M. Geiger of Shawna Mackey-Geiger, P.C., Greenwood Village, Colorado. Argument by Mr. Mackey.

Representing Appellee: Julie Nye Tiedeken of Tiedeken & Scoggin, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

KITE, Justice.

[¶ 1] Carly Mesa Cathcart¹ was the driver of an automobile involved in a one car rollover. The automobile belonged to her grandparents and was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). Following the accident, State Farm paid Ms. Cathcart $75,000 under the uninsured motorist coverage provision of the policy to settle her claims.

[¶ 2] Nearly four years later, Ms. Cathcart filed breach of contract and first party bad faith claims against State Farm for its actions and inactions in negotiating the settlement with her following the accident. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm on the breach of contract claim. The bad faith claim proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of State Farm. Ms. Cathcart appealed claiming the district court erred in: 1) granting summary judgment on her breach of contract claim; 2) allowing evidence at trial of the underlying accident, including the discovery of a marijuana pipe at the accident scene and alleged marijuana use by Ms. Cathcart prior to the accident; 3) allowing juror questions during the trial; and 4) giving certain jury instructions and refusing others. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] Ms. Cathcart presents the following issues:

1. The trial court committed error when it failed to rule on the appellee's obligations under the insurance contract and granted summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant's breach of contract claim.

2. The trial court committed error when it allowed evidence of the underlying incident giving rise to appellant's claim for breach of the duty of appellee to act in good faith with fair dealing.

3. The trial court committed error when it allowed evidence of a marijuana pipe and marijuana use to be presented to the jury.

4. The trial court's decision to ask questions submitted by the jury in this case was an abuse of discretion/error, and resulted in unfair prejudice to the appellant because the jury was allowed; and did, in fact, start advocating/deliberating before all of the evidence had been presented.

5. The trial court committed error in the giving of certain jury instructions and not giving others.

State Farm restates the issues as follows:

1. Did the trial court correctly grant State Farm summary judgment on appellant's breach of contract claim for the reason that there was no material issue of fact to be decided by the trier of fact?

2. Did the trial court properly allow evidence of the motor vehicle accident which gave rise to appellant's claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing to be admitted into evidence during trial?

3. Did the trial court properly allow the jury to hear about the factors considered by State Farm in its evaluation, including witness statements of marijuana use by Carly Mesa?

4. Did the trial court properly allow the jurors to submit questions to be asked of witnesses pursuant to Rule 39.4 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure?

5. Did the court correctly [instruct] the jury on the law?

FACTS

[¶ 4] On July 17, 1997, 17-year-old Carly Cathcart was driving a vehicle belonging to her grandparents, Al and Angie Mesa, on Interstate 25 near Casper, Wyoming when it left the roadway at a high rate of speed, rolled and came to a stop on its top in the median. Ms. Cathcart suffered serious injuries, including a closed head injury, broken neck and fracture of the pubic rami bones.

[¶ 5] At the time of the accident, the vehicle was insured by State Farm. In the course of investigating the accident, State Farm's claims representative, Rick Trujillo, interviewed several eyewitnesses, two of whom stated that another vehicle swerved into the passing lane in front of Ms. Cathcart's vehicle, cutting her off and causing her to swerve, lose control of her vehicle and go off the road. Although other eyewitnesses did not observe another vehicle, Mr. Trujillo notified the attorney representing the passengers in the Cathcart vehicle and Ms. Cathcart's mother that they might be entitled to pursue uninsured motorist claims.

[¶ 6] The State Farm policy provided $100,000 in coverage for uninsured motorist claims. Based upon its investigation of the accident and potential claims, State Farm's claims committee gave Mr. Trujillo authority to settle Ms. Cathcart's claim for $100,000. After talking with his supervisor, Mr. Trujillo extended an offer to Ms. Cathcart and her father to settle the claim for $75,000. On the day of Ms. Cathcart's 18th birthday, Mr. Trujillo met with Mr. Mesa and Ms. Cathcart, and Ms. Cathcart accepted the check for $75,000 and signed a release of her claims against State Farm.

[¶ 7] Four years later, Ms. Cathcart filed a complaint alleging that State Farm breached the insurance contract by failing to comply with the uninsured motorist provision of the policy and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by (1) settling the claim with a brain damaged minor without court approval; (2) failing to adequately investigate the claim; and (3) failing to pay policy limits.² State Farm filed an answer denying the claims and a notice of removal to federal district court. The case was removed to federal court, however, upon Ms. Cathcart's motion, it was remanded to state court.³

[¶ 8] Back in state district court, State Farm moved for summary judgment on all of Ms. Cathcart's claims. After a hearing, the district court entered an order granting summary judgment on the claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; postponing a ruling on the fraud claim until completion of discovery; allowing additional briefing on the breach of contract and breach of statutory duty claims; and denying the motion on the bad faith claim. When Ms. Cathcart and State Farm submitted no additional briefing on the breach of contract and breach of statutory duty claims, the district court entered a subsequent order granting summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and denying summary judgment on the breach of statutory duty claim. With these rulings, the claims left for trial by jury were breach of statutory duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud.

[¶ 9] Prior to trial, Ms. Cathcart filed motions in limine requesting an order prohibiting the introduction of evidence at trial of her alleged marijuana use and her liability for the accident. The district court denied the motions. Ms. Cathcart also filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which she sought rulings that as a matter of law, the amount of damages due to her under the policy was not fairly debatable and State Farm's failure to pay the full amount of coverage was a breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing. State Farm also filed a second motion for summary judgment on the claims for bad faith, breach of statutory duty, fraud and punitive damages. No order appears in the record on these motions.

[¶ 10] On August 16, 2004, the case proceeded to trial. Eleven days later, the jury returned a verdict finding that State Farm did not breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing or commit fraud in the manner in which it dealt with Ms. Cathcart's claim. The district court entered judgment on the jury verdict. Ms. Cathcart filed a motion for new trial which the district court denied following a hearing. Ms. Cathcart appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 11] We review orders granting summary judgment according to the following standards:

"Wyo. R. Civ. P. 56 governs summary judgments. A summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. W.R.C.P. 56(c). When reviewing a summary judgment, we consider the record in the perspective most favorable to the party opposing the motion and give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be fairly drawn from the record. We review questions of law de novo without giving any deference to the district court's determinations."

Baker v. Ayres and Baker Pole and Post, Inc., 2005 WY 97, ¶ 14, 117 P.3d 1234 (Wyo.2005) (citation omitted).

[¶ 12] We review the district court's decisions concerning the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. Smyth v. Kaufman, 2003 WY 52, ¶ 13, 67 P.3d 1161, 1165-66 (Wyo.2003). We adopt the same abuse of discretion standard for reviewing alleged error in the district court's decision to allow juror questions.⁴

[¶ 13] Our review of claimed error with respect to jury instructions is controlled by W.R.C.P. 51(b), which provides as follows:

(b) Further instructions; objections. — At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests. The court shall inform counsel of its proposed action upon the requests prior to their arguments to the jury. Before the argument of the case to the jury has begun, the court shall give to the jury such instructions on the law as may be necessary.... No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict,...