Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Douthat
| Decision Date | 04 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 931735,931741,s. 931735 |
| Parties | DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY v. Maria Elena DOUTHAT. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Maria Elena DOUTHAT. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Wm. Bradford Stallard, Abingdon (Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, on briefs), for Dairyland Ins. Co. John D. Eure, Roanoke (Johnson, Ayers & Matthews, on briefs), for State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Debra Fitzgerald-O'Connell, Pulaski (Robert J. Ingram, Gary C. Hancock, Gilmer, Sadler, Ingram, Sutherland & Hutton, on brief), for Maria Elena Douthat.
Present: All the Justices.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether Dairyland Insurance Company (Dairyland) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) are required to pay prejudgment interest which, when added to the judgment award, exceeds the liability limits for damages under their insurance contracts.
Maria Elena Douthat brought a personal injury action against Allen Price Dunford arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on October 5, 1987. In that action, a jury awarded Douthat $95,000 in damages, with prejudgment interest on that sum from the date of the accident. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict on December 10, 1991.
Shortly before entry of the judgment order in the tort action, Dairyland, Dunford's automobile liability insurer, paid Douthat its policy limits of $25,000. In addition, State Farm paid Douthat $75,000, which was the maximum amount available under the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage provision of Douthat's automobile insurance policy issued by State Farm. Douthat thus received the entire $95,000 damages awarded, plus $5,000 attributable to prejudgment interest.
Douthat then brought this action against Dairyland and State Farm (collectively, the insurers), seeking judgment for the unpaid amount of prejudgment interest awarded in the tort action. The insurers asserted that they were not obligated by the terms of their policies to pay Douthat any amounts of prejudgment interest that exceeded their combined policy limits.
Neither of the policies issued by the insurers specifically addressed the subject of prejudgment interest. Dairyland's liability policy provided, under "Limits of Liability," that
[t]he limit of bodily injury liability stated in the declarations as applicable to "each person" is the limit of the company's liability for all damages ... arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of any one occurrence[.]
Under a "Supplementary Payments" provision, Dairyland further agreed
[t]o pay, in addition to the applicable limits of liability:
(a) all expenses incurred by the company, all costs taxed against the insured in any such suit and all interest on the entire amount of any judgment therein which accrues after entry of the judgment and before the company has paid or tendered or deposited in court that part of the judgment which does not exceed the limit of the company's liability thereon[.]
State Farm's policy issued to Douthat provided UM coverage, subject to the limits of liability insurance in its policy, obligating State Farm to pay Douthat "all sums" which she was "legally entitled to recover as damages from [the underinsured tortfeasor, Dunford,] because of bodily injury sustained by [Douthat] ... caused by accident and arising out of [Dunford's use of an underinsured] motor vehicle." The policy further provided that any amount payable by State Farm would be reduced by sums paid by or on behalf of Dunford, the underinsured motorist.
After reviewing the policy provisions, the trial court entered summary judgment for Douthat, ruling that "current statutory and case law establishes pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and requires the payment of such even though it may exceed the limits stated in the policy." The trial court found that Douthat was entitled to an additional $27,175.56 in prejudgment interest that had accrued before the insurers made payment in the amount of their policy limits. The court entered judgment against the insurers in amounts totalling $27,175.56, apportioned in accordance with the principal amounts they had paid pursuant to their respective policy limits.
On appeal, the insurers argue that the trial court erred in imposing liability on them beyond their contractual duties. The insurers contend that the trial court failed to distinguish between the insurers' duties under their contracts of insurance and the duties that Code § 8.01-382 imposes upon a judgment debtor. While the insurers agree that prejudgment interest is an element of compensatory damages payable under their contracts of insurance, they assert that the amount of such interest they must pay is subject to their policy limits.
In response, Douthat argues that the statutory provision for interest in Code § 8.01-382 makes no distinction between interest accruing prejudgment or postjudgment, and that this statute obligates the insurers to pay prejudgment interest in excess of their policy limits. She further contends that this Court's holding in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Finley, 215 Va. 700, 214 S.E.2d 129 (1975), supports the trial court's ruling. We disagree with Douthat.
Initially, we observe that insurance policies are contracts whose terms are construed in accordance with the general principles applicable to all contracts. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Eaton, 248 Va. 426, 430, 448 S.E.2d 652, 655 (1994); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Walton, 244 Va. 498, 502, 423 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1992). If the terms of an insurance policy do not conflict with any provision of law, the terms of the contract, as written, will govern and limit the extent of recovery under the policy. See Eaton, 248 Va. at 430, 448 S.E.2d at 655; Peerless Ins. Co. v. Associates Fin. Servs. of America, Inc., 218 Va. 876, 879, 241 S.E.2d 792, 794 (1978).
In the present case, Douthat does not argue that either insurer undertook in its policy to pay prejudgment interest in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RGR, LLC v. Settle
...in the payment of money actually due.’ ” Upper Occoquan, 275 Va. at 63–64, 655 S.E.2d at 23 (quoting Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Douthat, 248 Va. 627, 631–32, 449 S.E.2d 799, 801 (1994) ).15 See 1979 Acts ch. 697 and 1964 Acts. ch. 219, respectively.1 Wolf Realty owned the land along the south si......
-
Hoeper v. Air Wis. Airlines Corp.
...interest by the trier of fact, who ‘may provide for’ such interest and fix the time of its commencement.” Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Douthat, 248 Va. 627, 449 S.E.2d 799, 801 (1994). Thus, in Virginia the decision whether to award prejudgment interest rests with the See Upper Occoquan Sewage Aut......
-
In re Reed
...trial court. Hannon Armstrong & Co. v. Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co ., 973 F.2d 359, 369 (4th Cir. 1992) ; Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Douthat , 248 Va. 627, 449 S.E.2d 799, 801 (1994). "A court's discretion is guided by balancing the equities of each case—in particular, the desire to make the pre......
-
Morrow Corp. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.
...and apply the law of a State as it exists, should not create or expand that State's public policy."). 15. Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Douthat, 248 Va. 627, 449 S.E.2d 799, 801 (1994); see, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Eaton, 248 Va. 426, 448 S.E.2d 652, 655 (1994); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wal......
-
Chapter 3
...Housing Building Corp. v. Acordia of Virginia Insurance Agency, Inc., 591 S.E.2d 88 (Va. 2004); Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Douthat, 449 S.E.2d 799 (Va. 1994). Washington: New Hampshire Indemnity Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 64 P.3d 1239 (Wash. 2003); Ki Sin Kim v. Allstate Insura......
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...Housing Building Corp. v. Acordia of Virginia Insurance Agency, Inc., 591 S.E.2d 88 (Va. 2004); Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Douthat, 449 S.E.2d 799 (Va. 1994). Washington: New Hampshire Indemnity Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 64 P.3d 1239 (Wash. 2003); Ki Sin Kim v. Allstate Insura......