Christian v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 04 April 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 6209.,6209. |
Citation | 89 F. Supp. 888 |
Parties | CHRISTIAN v. PREFERRED ACC. INS. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Oliver J. Carter, Daniel S. Carlton and Ira M. Shadwell, Redding, Cal., for plaintiff.
John J. Healy and Leo J. Walcom, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.
The complaint charges defendants, plaintiff's liability automobile insurance carriers, with failure to settle a lawsuit brought by one who was injured through plaintiff's operation of the insured automobile, in which a judgment was entered in excess of the insurance policy limits.
The complaint sets forth two causes of action. The theory in the first cause is negligence of defendant in failing to settle the case, and in the second that defendants acted in bad faith toward plaintiff in their performance under the insurance contract.
A pre-trial conference was had at which two issues were raised. One, as to whether or not the first cause of action should be stricken because no cause of action was stated by the allegation that defendants were negligent in failing to settle the suit; and two, whether costs for attorneys' fees should be stricken as not being a proper item of damage in the count for breach of contract.
Counsel for plaintiff in their brief have cited Attleboro Manufacturing Co. v. Frankfort Marine Accident & Plate Glass Ins. Co., 1 Cir., 240 F. 573, and similar cases, as authority for their view that the negligence by an insurance company in compromising, or attempting to compromise, a claim against an assured gives rise to a cause of action.
Defendants on the other hand contend that the criteria is whether or not there is a showing of bad faith on the part of the insurance company in the failing to compromise before a cause of action would arise making an insurance company liable for an excess over the policy limit for which the insured is liable to the injured party recovering the judgment. Royal Transit v. Central Surety and Insurance Corporation, 7 Cir., 168 F.2d 345, is an example of the cases relied upon by the defendants to support their contention.
The jurisdictions are not at all uniform and many cases may be found taking one view or the other. See the Annotation in 131 A.L.R. 1500 et seq.
It will be noted that some cases apparently use the two terms indiscriminately and hold that the insurance company must not act either in bad faith or negligently. See State Automobile Ins. Co. v. York, 4 Cir., 104 F.2d 730; Burnham v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 10 Wash.2d 624, 117 P. 2d 644.
Nevertheless the last cited case, 117 P. 2d at page 650, quoting another case, sets forth what seems to be the better rule and the reason for it as follows:
The following cases also indicate that the bad faith theory is the proper one. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. G. A. Nichols Co., 10 Cir., 173 F.2d 830; Noshey et al. v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 68 F.2d 808; Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rudco Oil and Gas Co., 10 Cir., 129 F. 2d 621, 142 A.L.R. 799.
Since diversity of citizenship is the basis of jurisdiction state court decisions are controlling. Counsel have cited no California appellate court decisions upon the subject and my own research has revealed none. My attention, however, has been called to the case of Wong and Marr v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. of New York decided December 7, 1948 by the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, sitting as a nisi prius court. In a well reasoned opinion the judge followed the bad faith and rejected the negligence rule of liability. Ordinarily under the terms of the policy the insurer is in full charge of the litigation, to the exclusion of the insured in the preparation of the defense, negotiation for settlement and other steps in the lawsuit. Its actions affect not only its own...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henke v. Iowa Home Mut. Cas. Co.
...the insurer cannot be held liable even though there is a mistake of judgment in arriving at its conclusion. Christian v. Preferred Accident Insurance Company, D.C., 89 F.Supp. 888; Burnham v. Commercial Casualty Insurance Company, 10 Wash.2d 624, 117 P.2d 644; Hoyt v. Factory Mutual Liabili......
-
Williams v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Corp.
...that the insurer exercise ordinary care in conducting such defense.Id. (analyzing cases). See also Christian v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co., et al., 89 F.Supp. 888, 889 (N.D.Cal.1950) (similar).In Gu v. BMW of North America, LLC , 132 Cal.App.4th 195, 204, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 617 (2005), the court r......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Cosby
...failure to defend the action thereby putting the insured to the necessity of the expense of hiring counsel. Christian v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co., D.C., 89 F.Supp. 888. Hartford had no contract to furnish the plaintiff with attorneys in the present suit. We know of no statute that so pro......
-
Asher v. Reliance Insurance Company
...was issued. National Life and Accident Insurance Co. v. Gorey, 249 F.2d 388, 392-393 (9th Cir. 1957). Cf. Christian v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co., 89 F.Supp. 888, 890 (N.D. Cal. 1950). Because of a paucity of Alaska law on several of the issues under consideration here, the law of the forum, C......