Chicoine v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 February 1967 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alfred J. CHICOINE, Jr. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. 1 |
Thomas S. Carey, Hingham, for plaintiff, submitted a brief.
John B. Killilea, Boston (David B. Avery, Boston, with him) for defendants.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.
In this action of tort or contract a demurrer to the declaration was sustained for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appealed.
The lengthy declaration alleges the following: In a policy insuring the defendant Warren H. Greer the defendant insurer agreed to pay all sums, but not more than $26,336.10, which Greer should become obligated to pay for bodily injuries sustained by any one person as a result of Greer's operation of a motor vehicle owned by Greer. On October 13, 1961, the plaintiff Chicoine, Jr., was injured by Greer's negligent operation of his motor vehicle, and Chicoine, Sr., became liable for his son's medical and hospital expenses. On November 28, 1962, Chicoine, Sr., individually and as father and next friend, brought an action against Greer. After trial, judgments were entered. After trial, judgments and Chicoine, Jr., respectively, for $6,922.29 and $34,267.05. The insurer paid Chicoine, Sr., $6,922.29 in full payment of the execution in his favor and $19,413.81, the limit of its obligation, on the other judgment, leaving an unpaid balance of $17,930.95 (sic) on that judgment. Before trial, offers of settlement were made on behalf of Chicoine, Jr., first of $50,000, and then of $40,000. The insurer offered to pay $15,000. The attorneys for the plaintiff stated that if the insurer would reveal the coverage, they would make an offer within the coverage, but the insurer refused to authorize its counsel to reveal that coverage. Greer had no counsel, was not informed of any offers made on behalf of the plaintiff, and was not advised that he should get counsel of his own. The insurer owed Greer a duty to inform him of the offers, and in its refusal to settle within the policy limits, it acted negligently, and failed to protect his rights. The insurer's decision was made in bad faith and without regard to the rights and interests of Greer. Wherefore, the insurer owes the plaintiff $17,930.95 (sic) with interest.
A demurrer does not admit general conclusions of law or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poremba v. City of Springfield
...private benefit of Albano. See Stockus v. Boston Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 507, 511, 24 N.E.2d 333; Chicoine v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 351 Mass. 664, 666, 223 N.E.2d 510. See also Machado v. Board of Public Works of Arlington, 321 Mass. 101, 104--105, 71 N.E.2d 886; Sellors v. T......
-
Bean v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...them. See Wessing v. American Indemnity Co. of Galveston, Tex., supra; Francis v. Newton, supra; Chicoine v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 351 Mass. 664, 223 N.E.2d 510 (1967); Pringle v. Robertson, supra; Ammerman v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, supra. See also 12 G. Couch......
-
Garvin v. Com.
......State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 ......
-
Colsch v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...from facts averred. . . . The demurrer did not admit that the insurer acted other than in good faith.' Chicoline v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 351 Mass. 664, 666, 223 N.E.2d 510, 511. At most, the plaintiffs have alleged a failure to make a settlement 'which a reasonably prudent person......