Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Ammerman, Civ. A. No. 84-2475.
Decision Date | 15 January 1986 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 84-2475. |
Citation | 630 F. Supp. 114 |
Parties | HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. Gloria A. AMMERMAN, Dennis D. Ammerman, Ramona A. Roberts, and Leigh A. Ross, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Hal Pierce, Couch & Pierce, Chartered, Overland Park, Kan., for plaintiff.
Craig A. Strayer, Condon, Baker, Strayer & Shouse, Kansas City, Mo., John H. Hardy, Overland Park, Kan., for defendants.
In this declaratory judgment action, the following motions are now pending: (1) defendants' motions to dismiss, (2) defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (3) plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. We are now prepared to rule on those motions.
The facts in this case are undisputed. Plaintiff issued an automobile insurance policy to Mr. Lee Dean Ammerman, with the last renewal thereof valid through April 29, 1984. The policy included underinsured motorist coverage with policy limits of $250,000.00 per person or $500,000.00 per occurrence. On November 17, 1983, Mr. Ammerman was in a fatal two-car accident. The driver of the other car, Mrs. Robinette Chadwick, was insured through the Allstate Insurance Company. Her auto liability insurance policy limit was $50,000.00.
Defendants are the heirs-at-law of Mr. Ammerman. Under the Kansas Wrongful Death Act, K.S.A. 60-1901 et seq., such heirs are authorized to recover damages for the death of their decedent. Because Mr. Ammerman's underinsured motorist policy defines "insured" to include "any person entitled to recover damages because of bodily injury to or death of" a policyholder, defendants also qualify as "insureds" under that policy. The policy elsewhere contains the following provision:
There is no coverage for any insured who, without our written consent, settles with any person or organization who may be liable for the bodily injury.
On March 29, 1984, defendant Gloria Ammerman (Mr. Ammerman's widow) signed the following "RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS":
/s/Gloria A. Ammerman GLORIA A. AMMERMAN
(Emphasis added.)
Although the last paragraph of this release does make reference to a reservation of rights to proceed under Mr. Ammerman's underinsured motorist policy, the release was subsequently reformed to more clearly reflect the intention of the parties thereto. In a journal entry of November 28, 1984, the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, ordered that the following sentence be added at the end of the sixth paragraph of the above-quoted release:
The subrogation rights of Horace Mann Insurance Company against Robinette Chadwick, if any, arising from any payment made or to be made by Horace Mann Insurance Company under the underinsured motorist coverages are not affected by this agreement.
In accordance with the terms of the release, Allstate Insurance Company paid to defendants the $50,000.00 provided for in Mrs. Chadwick's insurance policy. On February 11, 1985, defendants filed suit in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, against Mrs. Chadwick, alleging that her negligence caused the death of Mr. Ammerman. Mrs. Chadwick confessed judgment in that action. On March 20, 1985, the state court entered judgment in favor of defendants and against Mrs. Chadwick in the amount of $200,000.00. Although properly notified of that state court proceeding, plaintiff chose not to intervene.
Plaintiff filed this action for declaratory relief on December 6, 1984, (i.e., after reformation of the release, but before defendants filed their state court action against Mrs. Chadwick). Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the release executed by Mrs. Ammerman without plaintiff's written consent violated the quoted clause from Mr. Ammerman's underinsured motorist policy, and that said policy is therefore void. Defendants have counterclaimed for the $200,000.00 allegedly due them under that policy—said amount being the difference between the $250,000.00 per person policy limit and the $50,000.00 already received from Allstate Insurance Company.
Initially, a joint motion to dismiss was filed by the three defendants who had then been served with process. When the fourth defendant eventually received service of process, he also moved to dismiss. Because both motions raise identical issues, they will be considered together.
Defendants argue that the relief plaintiff seeks is foreclosed by plaintiff's failure to intervene in the state court action filed by defendants against Mrs. Chadwick. As authority for this argument, defendants cite the recent Kansas Supreme Court decision in Haas v. Freeman, 236 Kan. 677, 693 P.2d 1199 (1985). Especially pertinent is the following language from that opinion:
We reiterate our previous conclusions in Winner v. Ratzlaff, 211 Kan. 59, 505 P.2d 606 (1973) that all issues in a lawsuit should be tried in one trial. Multiplicity of suits does not promote substantial justice. Thus, the issues in cases involving uninsured motorists and underinsured motorists should be tried in one lawsuit.
236 Kan. at 682, 693 P.2d at 1203.
Contrary to the implication of defendants' argument, however, Haas did not establish a rule of mandatory intervention in a case such as this. The court's actual holding was as follows:
236 Kan. at 682-83, 693 P.2d at 1203-04 (emphasis added). Clearly, plaintiff retained the right not to intervene in the state court action. By electing not to do so, of course, it did become bound by the state court's determination that defendants had suffered damages of $200,000.00 and that Mrs. Chadwick was liable therefor. However, the question at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. KFB Ins. Co.
...Thompson, therefore, is barred from recovering from KFB and has impaired KFB's rights of subrogation. See Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Ammerman, 630 F.Supp. 114, 117 (D.Kan.1986); Benson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 227 Kan. 833, 839, 610 P.2d 605 KFB's argument, that its right of subrogation was impair......
-
Bartee v. R.T.C. Transp., Inc.
...the acts of the defendants. When the Honorable Earl O'Connor applied K.S.A. 40-287 to third-party tortfeasors in Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Ammerman, 630 F.Supp. 114 (D.Kan.1986), he concluded that the exclusion clause of the policy would not prevent the claim for uninsured motorist coverage b......
-
Guillan v. Watts
...Three federal courts have reached the opposite conclusion when the insurer refused to intervene in the action. In Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Ammerman, 630 F.Supp. 114 (D.Kan.1986), a declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff, Horace Mann Ins. Co. (Horace Mann), had issued an automobile insura......
-
Webb v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
...has been established and the covered person's damages determined by judgment or an arbitration award. Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Ammerman, 630 F.Supp. 114, 119-20 (D.Kan.1986); Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 483 A.2d 344, 347 (Me.1984); Palmer v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 233 Mont. 515, 526, 761 P.2......