Gorab v. Equity General Agents, Inc., 82CA0673
Decision Date | 10 March 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82CA0673,82CA0673 |
Citation | 661 P.2d 1196 |
Parties | Edmund A. GORAB d/b/a Bennett-Shellenberger Realty, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUITY GENERAL AGENTS, INC., and California Union Insurance, Defendants-Appellees. . III |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Falcone, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Donald E. LaMora, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee Equity General Agents, Inc.
Weller, Friedrich, Hickisch & Hazlitt, Geoffrey S. Race, Denver, for defendant-appellee California Union Ins.
The plaintiff, Edmund A. Gorab, a real estate broker, sued his insurance agent, Equity General Agents, Inc. (Equity General), and his errors and omissions carrier, California Union Insurance Company (Cal Union), alleging negligence, breach of contract, and outrageous conduct. The trial court entered summary judgment dismissing all claims against Equity General for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court also entered partial summary judgment in favor of Cal Union, dismissing all negligence claims against it, dismissing the outrageous conduct claims, and reserving for trial those claims based on the conduct of an attorney (retained attorney) procured by Cal Union to represent the plaintiff. As to these latter claims, the trial court entered an order under C.R.C.P. 54(b), and this appeal ensued. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that he had been previously sued concerning a transaction covered by his Cal Union errors and omissions policy, and that these defendants had a legal duty to settle that lawsuit prior to judgment when reasonable to do so. He further alleged that this duty was breached by the defendants when they negligently failed, prior to trial, to respond to and to accept a settlement proposal forwarded and recommended by the retained attorney, although they had promised to do so and knew of the trial date. The plaintiff was therefore forced to accept the settlement offer without the prior consent of Cal Union because of the danger of ruinous adverse publicity and exposure to a judgment in excess of policy limits. The plaintiff also alleged that he was advised by Equity General that his settlement without prior consent resulted in nullification of his policy coverage as to the prior litigation, that the defendants' conduct was a bad faith breach of insurance contract, and that he incurred damages in the amount of the settlement figure together with additional amounts for mental suffering of various kinds.
The plaintiff's breach of contract claim was based on the alleged breach of a policy provision specifying that the insured "shall not be required to contest any legal proceeding unless a lawyer (to be mutually agreed upon by the insured and the company) shall advise that such proceedings shall be contested." According to the complaint, the retained attorney advised that no trial should take place because of the risk of judgment in excess of the policy limits, and accordingly, the cancellation of the policy as to that pending litigation constituted a breach of contract.
In his third claim for relief, the plaintiff alleged that the conduct of the defendants was outrageous in that they intended to inflict severe emotional distress upon the plaintiff and knew such distress was certain or substantially certain to result from their conduct. This conduct was further alleged to have resulted in damage to the plaintiff.
We agree with the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Equity General on the negligence and breach of contract claims. Central to the plaintiff's right to recover on these claims is the contractual relationship arising from the Cal Union errors and omissions policy. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kornbluth, 28 Colo.App. 194, 471 P.2d 609 (1970). Since Equity General is the agent of Cal Union, and is not a party to the contract of insurance, it is not bound by duties created under the contract. Accordingly, liability for breach of those duties, whether the breach be contractual or tortious in nature, cannot be visited upon the agent. Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 24 Cal.3d 809, 169 Cal.Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141 (1979), cert. denied 445 U.S. 912, 100 S.Ct. 1271, 63 L.Ed.2d 597 (1979); Iversen v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.App.3d 168, 127 Cal.Rptr. 49 (1976).
While the outrageous conduct claim does not necessarily rest upon the existence of a contractual relationship between Equity General and the plaintiff, here, there are no allegations against the agent, in its independent capacity, of conduct which reasonable persons could characterize as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Rugg v. McCarty, 173 Colo. 170, 476 P.2d 753 (1970). Therefore, the third claim for relief was properly dismissed as to Equity General. First National Bank v. Collins, 44 Colo.App. 228, 616 P.2d 154 (1980).
We agree with the plaintiff, however, that the trial court erred in dismissing his tort claims against Cal Union. In so ruling, the trial court interpreted the complaint as based on the theory of negligent refusal to settle a claim, and interpreted Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kornbluth, supra, as authorizing recovery only in those cases in which a judgment in excess of the policy limits had already been obtained.
We do not interpret Kornbluth so narrowly. We there said that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delancy v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...without deciding, that Georgia law would allow an insured to recover damages for emotional distress, compare Gorab v. Equity Gen. Agents, Inc., 661 P.2d 1196, 1199 (Colo.App.1983) (recovery for emotional distress) with DiBlasi v. Aetna Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 147 A.D.2d 93, 542 N.Y.S.2d 1......
-
Cary v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.
...liability for the tortious breach of the insurance contract cannot be visited upon the sales agent. Gorab v. Equity General Agents, Inc., 661 P.2d 1196 (Colo.App.1983). See also Lira v. Shelter Insurance Co., 913 P.2d 514 (Colo.1996); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kornbluth, 28 Colo.App. 1......
-
Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Lease
...(quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. at 101-102). A. Good Faith and Fair Dealing Rebollo relies on Gorab v. Equity General Agents, Inc., 661 P.2d 1196 (Colo. App.1983) that there is no duty of good faith and fair dealing between an insurance broker or agent and the insured. Although......
-
Dunn v. Am. Family Ins.
...to monitor or supervise ICA. Generally, one not a party to a contract cannot be liable for its violation. Gorab v. Equity General Agents, Inc., 661 P.2d 1196, 1198 (Colo.App.1983). Here, it is undisputed that it was plaintiffs who ultimately decided to retain ICA, and that defendant has nev......
-
The Professional Liability Insurer's Duty to Defend-part I
...599 F.Supp. 1142 (D.Colo. 1984); Savio v. Travelers Insurance Co., 678 P.2d 549 (Colo.App. 1983); Gorab v. Equity General Agents, Inc., 661 P.2d 1196(Colo.App. 1983). 3. See, Miller, "Insurance Bad Faith in Colorado," 14 The Colorado Lawyer 1157 (July 1985). 4. 691 P.2d 1138 (Colo. 1984). 5......
-
Insurance Bad Faith in Colorado
...and "no-fault" auto coverage. Liability coverage, protection from claims of others, is usually characterized as third-party coverage. 34. 661 P.2d 1196 (Colo.App. 1983). 35. 667 P.2d 766 (Colo.App. 1983) at 767. 36. 678 P.2d 549 (Colo.App. 1983), cert. granted, Colo., March 5, 1984. 37. See......
-
A Survey of Outrageous Conduct Under Colorado Law: Part Ii
.... . . [and] in view of the vulnerable mental condition of the insured." Id. at 684. Triable In Part Gorab v. Equity Gen. Agents, Inc., 661 P.2d 1196 1983): "[P]laintiff, . . . a real estate broker, sued his insurance agent . . . and his errors and omissions carrier. . . ." Id. at 1197. "In ......
-
Troubling Issues in Insurance Bad Faith
...Ninth District Credit Ass'n, 20 Colo.Law.. 1656 (Aug. 1991)(App. No. 89CA2161, annc'd 6/6/91). 13. Gorab v. Equity General Agents, Inc., 661 P.2d 1196 (Colo.App. 1983) (insurance agent not bound by the duties created under the insurance contract). 14. Iverson v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.App. ......