COCA-COLA BOT. CO. OF ASHEVILLE, NC v. Maryland Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2936. |
| Citation | 325 F. Supp. 204 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. |
O. E. Starnes, Jr., Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Hyde, Asheville, N. C., for defendant.
On February 27, 1961, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Asheville owned a 1959 Chevrolet truck which was being driven by their employee, Leonard Ray Hollifield, on Coca-Cola business. Hollifield had a collision that day on a one-lane bridge in Forest City, North Carolina, with a Volkswagen truck driven by William Glenn Murray. Murray was seriously injured. Murray sued Coca-Cola for damages for his injuries and in a trial conducted in Rutherfordton, North Carolina, in April, 1965, he recovered a verdict and judgment against Coca-Cola for $87,500. Maryland Casualty Company, the automobile insurer for Coca-Cola, paid its policy limit of $50,000 and Coca-Cola paid $37,500 in satisfaction of the judgment.
Coca-Cola has now sued Maryland Casualty Company, asserting that Maryland should reimburse Coca-Cola the additional $37,500 representing the recovery which exceeds the $50,000 liability insurance limits which Maryland had on the Coca-Cola truck.
At a hearing in Charlotte on December 7, 1970, it was stipulated that the evidence should consist of the admissions in the pleadings, the transcript of the pleadings and trial in the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Murray v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company et al., 265 N.C. 334, 144 S.E.2d 1 (1965); and depositions of James Smathers, Oscar J. Mooneyham, Fred D. Hamrick and B. Calvin Deaner.
Rutherford County is a rural county in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, some 75 to 90 miles west of Charlotte and 35 to 50 miles east of Asheville. At the time of this trial in 1965 it had traditionally been a "low verdict" county, but some verdicts exceeding $25,000 had been rendered.
At the damage suit trial of Murray v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company and Hollifield, the plaintiff Murray was represented by Oscar J. Mooneyham, now deceased, and James C. Smathers. The defendants, Coca-Cola Bottling Company and Hollifield, were represented by Robert A. Jones and Fred D. Hamrick, Jr. of Rutherfordton. Fred Hamrick was retained by Maryland Casualty Company, and Robert A. Jones was retained by Coca-Cola Bottling Company because the suit for $150,000 was for $100,000 more than the $50,000 limit of liability insurance coverage.
The plaintiff Murray was badly injured. His hospital and doctors' bills at the time of trial were nearly $8,000 and his loss of earnings at that time (217 weeks) amounted to over $21,000. There was evidence that he had 80% disability in his injured leg in which he was wearing a metal prosthesis as part of the hip joint.
The negotiations and trial of the case were conducted on four days, April 25, 26, 27 and 28, 1965.
While the trial was going on the defendants offered to pay $20,000 and counsel for Maryland Casualty indicated that he would be willing to pay more if he could settle the case. Plaintiff offered to accept $35,000. There was a good deal of discussion, and the figure $27,500 was mentioned, but there is no indication that anybody offered to accept $27,500 nor that counsel for the defendants recommended to defendants that they pay $27,500. Counsel for the plaintiff (Mooneyham) indicated in his deposition that they would have given "serious consideration" to taking $27,500.
The evidence presented a stark and irreconcilable conflict between the testimony of the plaintiff, Murray, and the defendant Hollifield, who were the only direct eyewitnesses to the collision itself.
There were genuine and difficult issues of fact to be resolved by the jury on the questions of negligence and contributory negligence; and although counsel for all parties realized the possibility of a recovery by the plaintiff, no one appears to have contemplated in advance that such a recovery might exceed $50,000.
The evidence was presented on Tuesday and Wednesday of the trial week.
The scene of the accident was a narrow one-lane bridge over a railroad. The paved surface of the bridge was 15 feet wide and the bridge was 80 feet long. As one approaches the bridge from either direction, he drives along parallel to the railroad and then makes a turn and goes up an incline and across the bridge.
The truck of the defendants was between six and seven feet wide, and the Volkswagen of the plaintiff was about five and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co.
...insured. In that event, a showing of bad faith may be required to recover in excess of policy limits. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 325 F.Supp. 204, 206 (W.D.N.C.1971). Still, the Supreme Court of North Carolina and lower courts have described the insurer's settlement dut......