Jindra v. Clayton
| Citation | 529 N.W.2d 523,247 Neb. 597 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S-93-449,S-93-449 |
| Parties | Edward E. and Kathryn A. JINDRA, Husband and Wife, Appellants, v. Elizabeth CLAYTON and Cindy Clayton, Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Evidence: Stipulations: Appeal and Error. In a case in which the facts are stipulated, an appellate court reviews the case as if trying it originally in order to determine whether the facts warranted the judgment.
2. Appeal and Error. An appellate court has an obligation to reach conclusions on questions of law independent of the trial court's ruling.
3. Subrogation: Words and Phrases. Generally, subrogation is the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim so that the one who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim.
4. Insurance: Subrogation: Tort-feasors. In the context of insurance, the right of subrogation is based on two premises: (1) an insured should not be allowed to recover twice for the same loss, which would be the result if the insured recovers both from the insured's insurer and the tort-feasor, and (2) a wrongdoer should reimburse an insurer for payments that the insurer has made to its insured.
5. Insurance: Subrogation. Although an insurance company has the right to recover against a wrongdoer whose negligence has subjected the insurance company to liability, no right of subrogation can arise in favor of an insurer against its own insured.
6. Joint Tenancy. Each joint tenant is seized of the whole estate and has an undivided share of the whole estate. The shares of interests of joint tenants are presumed equal.
7. Insurable Interest: Words and Phrases. An insurable interest is an interest in property or any relation thereto, or liability in respect thereof, of such a nature that a contemplated peril might directly damnify the insured. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 44-103(12) (Reissue 1993).
8. Contracts: Subrogation: Equity. Unless a contract specifically provides otherwise, equitable principles apply even when a subrogation right is based on contract. The facts and circumstances of each case determine whether the doctrine of subrogation is applicable.
9. Evidence: Proof. The finder of fact may draw reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances proved.
10. Insurance: Contracts: Joint Tenancy: Intent. An insurance company does not have the right to recover against a joint tenant of its insureds where the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that a close family relationship existed between the joint tenants and it is reasonable to infer that the named insureds intended the policy to cover all of the joint tenants.
Thomas A. Grennan and Francie C. Riedmann, of Gross & Welch, P.C., Omaha, for appellants.
Terry K. Gutierrez and Christopher D. Curzon, of Schmid, Mooney & Frederick, P.C., Omaha, for appellees.
Plaintiffs, Edward E. and Kathryn A. Jindra, appeal a judgment of the district court for Douglas County. The Jindras held property in joint tenancy with their adult daughter, Elizabeth Clayton. Clayton and her daughter, Cindy Clayton, resided at the property. The dwelling policy which insured the property listed the Jindras as the named insureds. The parties have stipulated that the property was damaged by a fire negligently caused by Cindy, then 13 years of age. The Jindras' insurer brought a subrogation action in the name of the Jindras against the Claytons. After a bench trial based entirely on stipulated facts, the district court dismissed the subrogation action. In its memorandum dismissing the action, the district court stated that insurers cannot subrogate against their own insureds and that due to the close familial relationship between the parties and because the insured property was held in joint tenancy, the insurer was, in effect, seeking to subrogate against its own insured. The insurer, in the name of the Jindras, timely perfected an appeal. We
hold that the relationship between the Jindras and the Claytons is such that if the insurer were permitted to maintain a subrogation action it would be, in effect, suing its own insured. Therefore, we affirm the holding of the district court.
The parties waived jury trial and submitted their case on the basis of stipulated facts. All of the facts stated below are derived from that stipulation, exhibit 1, and the attachments incorporated into it.
Edward E. and Kathryn A. Jindra are husband and wife. Elizabeth Clayton is their daughter and Cindy Clayton their granddaughter.
Prior to and including July 24, 1987, the Jindras were joint owners with Elizabeth Clayton of a house located at 1615 South 60th in Omaha, Nebraska. The Claytons were the permanent and only residents of the house. At no time did the Jindras reside in the house.
On or about July 24, 1987, a fire occurred at the house, resulting in extensive property damage. The fire was proximately caused by the negligence of Cindy Clayton when she carelessly disposed of a lighter or match. At time of the fire, Cindy Clayton, a 13-year-old minor, was home alone. Elizabeth Clayton has stipulated that she failed to keep the lighter or matches in a safe and secure place, out of the reach, possession, and control of Cindy Clayton.
The house was insured under a policy issued by Companion Insurance Company (Companion) for a face amount of $21,000. The Companion policy provided insurance for various perils, including fire, and such insurance policy was in full force and effect on the date of the fire. The Jindras are identified as the named insureds and Commercial Federal Savings & Loan is listed as the mortgagee.
The Claytons were the named insureds under a homeowners insurance policy issued by Farmers Union Co-operative Insurance Company (Farmers). The Farmers policy was in full force and effect on the date of the fire and provided personal property and personal liability coverage.
On August 17, 1987, the Jindras signed a "Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss." The statement indicates that the actual cash value of the property was $21,000 and that damages as a result of the fire totaled $21,000. The Jindras stated that the "fire started from tenant's child using matches." Finally, the Jindras described their interest in the property as "titleholder[s]" and stated that no other person had any interest in the property other than the mortgagee, Commercial Federal Savings & Loan.
On August 17, 1987, Companion paid the Jindras $21,000 pursuant to the policy for the damages sustained in the fire. In receipt for such payment, the Jindras executed a "Subrogation Receipt" in favor of Companion.
Companion brought a subrogation action in the name of its insureds, the Jindras, naming Elizabeth Clayton and Cindy Clayton as defendants. The Jindras alleged three theories of recovery against the Claytons. First, the Jindras alleged that the fire was proximately caused by the negligence of Elizabeth Clayton in failing to properly and adequately supervise the minor, Cindy Clayton. Secondly, the Jindras alleged that Elizabeth Clayton, as a joint tenant, was liable to the Jindras for waste committed to the house. Finally, the Jindras alleged that Cindy Clayton's negligence was the cause of the fire and ensuing damages. The Claytons generally denied the Jindras' allegations.
The case was tried on these stipulated facts on April 1, 1993. On April 27, the district court held that the joint tenancy relationship between the parties precluded a subrogation action by the Jindras against the Claytons and entered judgment in favor of the Claytons. On May 21, the Jindras timely filed a notice of appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. On September 14, 1994, by order of this court, the case was moved to our docket.
The gist of the Jindras' five assignments of error is that the district court erred by determining that the parties' joint tenancy relationship
prohibited subrogation by the Jindras' insurer and by assuming facts not supported by the evidence when sitting as the trier of fact.
In a case in which the facts are stipulated, this court reviews the case as if trying it originally in order to determine whether the facts warranted the judgment. Douglas Cty. Bank & Trust v. Stamper, 244 Neb. 226, 505 N.W.2d 693 (1993); Dobias v. Service Life Ins. Co., 238 Neb. 87, 469 N.W.2d 143 (1991). An appellate court has an obligation to reach conclusions on questions of law independent of the trial court's ruling. Dolan v. Svitak, 247 Neb. 410, 527 N.W.2d 621 (1995); Hausse v. Kimmey, 247 Neb. 23, 524 N.W.2d 567 (1994).
The Jindras argue that as joint tenants, they and Elizabeth Clayton each had an insurable interest in the property. However, only the Jindras are identified as the named insureds on the Companion dwelling policy. The Jindras assert that the mere fact that they are joint tenants with Elizabeth Clayton does not automatically make her a coinsured for the purpose of subrogation. The Jindras contend that the Companion policy cannot be construed to inure to the benefit of the Claytons, absent an express agreement evidencing such was the parties' intent. The Jindras argue that no evidence of such an express agreement between them and the Claytons is in the record. They further assert that an express agreement cannot be reasonably assumed from the stipulated facts. Finally, they assert that they have a "valid [cause] of action against the Claytons for both negligence and waste and [that] Companion, having paid the amount of the loss, is now subrogated to these causes of action[s]." Brief for appellants at 15.
The Claytons admit that Elizabeth Clayton, as a joint tenant, had an insurable interest in the property. For that reason, they argue that the subrogation action is the same as if Companion was suing its own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, No. 18276.
...insured brother, the court concluded that subrogation was not appropriate.12 Id., at 129, 348 N.W.2d 832; see also Jindra v. Clayton, 247 Neb. 597, 606, 529 N.W.2d 523 (1995) (“relationship between the [parents] and the [daughter's family] is such that if [the parents' insurer] were permitt......
-
State v. Yelli
...an appellate court has an obligation to reach conclusions of law independent of those of the inferior courts. See Jindra v. Clayton, 247 Neb. 597, 529 N.W.2d 523 (1995). III. In addition to the evidence detailed in part I above, the mother of one of the minors in question testified that her......
-
Motor Club Ins. Ass'n v. Fillman
...to the debt or claim and its rights, remedies, or securities. Leader Nat. Ins. v. American Hardware Ins., supra; Jindra v. Clayton, 247 Neb. 597, 529 N.W.2d 523 (1995); Chadron Energy Corp. v. First Nat. Bank, 236 Neb. 173, 459 N.W.2d 718 In the present case, Motor Club argues that Huffman ......
-
Dattel Family Ltd. Partnership v. Wintz
...arise in favor of an insurer against its own insured." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 2005 WL 457846, at *5 (citing Jindra v. Clayton, 247 Neb. 597, 529 N.W.2d 523 (1995)). Therefore, if the tenant is deemed a co-insured under the landlord's insurance policy, the insurance carrier would be ba......