Johnson v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, No. E2004-00250-COA-R3-CV (TN 3/9/2005)
| Decision Date | 09 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. E2004-00250-COA-R3-CV.,E2004-00250-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | ROBERT STEVEN JOHNSON v. TENNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County; No. 1-106-98; Dale C. Workman, Judge.
Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded.
John T. Johnson, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, and Michael R. Campbell, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for appellant, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company.
Bryan L. Capps and Sidney Gilreath, Knoxville, Tennessee, for appellee, Robert Steven Johnson.
OPINION
The issue for jury resolution was whether Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company refused in bad faith to settle a damage suit against Johnson by Moore within his policy limits of $25,000, and exposed him to a final judgment of nearly $200,000.00. Johnson's defense entirely focused on his asserted non-liability, not withstanding that Moore's medical expenses exceeded $75,000, and his injuries were serious and permanently disabling, thus reasonably indicating that if Johnson was found to be negligent, the percentage of his fault necessarily would have to be minimal in light of his insurance limits. An unidentified van forced Johnson to crash head-on into Moore, and the jury allocated 50% of Moore's damages to Johnson and 50% to the van. After this allocation was affirmed on appeal, Johnson sued Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, claiming that Moore's claim could have been settled for his policy limits. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company presents a host of issues, beginning with the refusal of the court to direct a verdict, and continuing with complaints of the trial judge commenting on the evidence and refusing corrective jury instructions. The judgment is reversed for the latter two reasons.
A jury determined that Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company [hereinafter "Tennessee Farmers"] acted in bad faith in failing to settle a lawsuit against the plaintiff filed by Christopher Moore. The policy issued by Tennessee Farmers provided liability coverage of $25,000 for the plaintiff, far less than the verdict in favor of Moore.
Tennessee Farmers appeals, insisting that its motion for a directed verdict should have been granted, or, in the alternative, that it should be granted a new trial because of the cumulative effect of numerous errors committed by the trial judge in commenting upon the evidence and refusing to give appropriate jury instructions.
We have determined that the trial judge's comments on the evidence require a new trial. We have also determined that the refusal of the trial judge to instruct the jury per the several requests, even when considered in isolation, require a new trial. The cumulative influence of these errors, as hereafter explained, substantially impaired Tennessee Farmers' right to a fair trial.
We are frank to say that the issue of whether the motion of Tennessee Farmers for a directed verdict should have been granted is not simplistic of resolution, but we have concluded that for the reasons hereafter recited the motion was properly denied.
This litigation arises from an automobile accident which occurred October 25, 1994, in Knox County, involving a vehicle driven by the plaintiff Robert Steven Johnson [hereinafter "Johnson"], a vehicle driven by Christopher Moore [hereinafter "Moore"], and a white van driven by an unknown [hereinafter "John Doe"] motorist. Both Moore and Johnson were insured under liability policies issued by Tennessee Farmers with minimum limits of liability coverage ($25,000/$50,000) and equal limits of uninsured motorist coverage. Moore filed suit against Johnson and John Doe for his personal injuries. Tennessee Farmers was served as uninsured motorist carrier with respect to Moore's action against John Doe. Johnson filed suit against John Doe. Tennessee Farmers was served with process as uninsured motorist carrier with respect to Moore's action against John Doe.
The actions of both Moore and Johnson against John Doe were settled by Tennessee Farmers paying its uninsured motorist coverage policy limits, under each policy, to each policyholder. The suit by Moore against Johnson resulted in a jury verdict allocating 50% fault to John Doe and 50% to Johnson which resulted in a judgment in favor of Moore against Johnson for $193,750, substantially in excess of Johnson's liability coverage of $25,000.
The lawsuit at Bar was filed against Tennessee Farmers by Johnson alleging that Tennessee Farmers was guilty of bad faith in refusing to settle his case within policy limits.
Tennessee Farmers filed its Answer asserting that it had properly investigated the facts of the accident, and concluded that (1) Johnson was guilty of no negligence in connection with the underlying accident, and (2) that it had retained competent counsel to represent and defend Johnson in the underlying action brought against him by Moore, and (3) had relied upon the advice of the attorney in determining to try the underlying action believing that a jury would not find Johnson guilty of any negligence. The jury found that the failure of Tennessee Farmers to settle the case against Johnson evidenced bad faith, and returned a verdict for the excess.
Tennessee's traditional standard for reviewing the evidentiary foundation of a jury's verdict is codified in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The rule provides that "[f]indings of fact by a jury in a civil action shall be set aside only if there is no material evidence to support the verdict." Appellate courts employing this standard may not review the evidence de novo. Alexander v. Armentrout, 24 S.W.3d at 271. Nor may they weigh the proof to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 822, 823 (Tenn. 1994); Overstreet v. Shoney"s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Rather, appellate courts must (1) take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence that favors the verdict, (2) assume the truth of all evidence that supports the verdict, and (3) allow all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict. Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2000); Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 719 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). If the record contains any material evidence to support the verdict, the judgment based on the verdict must be affirmed. Crabtree Masonry Co. v. C & R Constr., Inc., 575 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tenn. 1978); Moss v. Sankey, 54 S.W.3d 296, 298-99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
IV. Whether the Trial Court erred in failing to charge the jury in accordance with Tennessee Farmers' request to instruct number 12 that Tennessee Farmers had no duty to make uninsured motorist coverage payments to Christopher Moore and Robert Johnson.
V. Whether the Court erred in failing to charge Tennessee Farmers' request to instruct number 15 on the validity of the uninsured motorist coverage offset provision in the Moore policy.
VI. Whether the Court erred by commenting upon the evidence during the testimony of witness Zane Daniel and by stating that Tennessee Farmers' policy issued to Christopher Moore did not contain an uninsured motorist coverage offset provision which would prevent Moore from recovering uninsured motorist coverage after payment of Robert Johnson's liability coverage.
VII. Whether the Court erred in failing to charge Tennessee Farmers' request to instruct number 1 that George Buxton was an independent contractor in his relationship with Tennessee Farmers.
VIII. Whether the Court erred by commenting upon the evidence during the testimony of witness Zane Daniel and in stating that attorney George Buxton represented Tennessee Farmers in the underlying action brought by Christopher Moore against Robert Johnson.
IX. Whether the Court erred by denying Tennessee Farmers' Motion for Mistrial based upon the Court's erroneous comments upon the evidence, including rulings regarding the uninsured motorist offset provision in the Moore policy and regarding Buxton's representation of Tennessee Farmers.
I.
We first consider if the record reveals any "material evidence to support the verdict." Rule 13(d) Tenn. R. App. P.
Johnson was driving his small 1982 Mazda RX7 southbound on Highway 33, in Knox County, a four-lane divided highway where the accident occurred. Moore was traveling northbound on a section which was straight with vision unobstructed.
Johnson and Moore were each in the left inside lane of travel. There was a white van in the right southbound lane near Johnson's vehicle. As Johnson started to pass the white van it swerved suddenly into his lane, and Johnson swerved to the left, across the balance of his lane of travel, across the four foot median, and into the oncoming lane of travel where he collided head-on with Moore. Both Moore and Johnson were seriously injured.
The investigating officer confirmed the existence of the white van and included in the accident report the actual lane measurements at the scene. He did not indicate that either Johnson or Moore did anything wrong.
At the time of the accident, adjuster Dennis Ray Hinkle [hereinafter "Hinkle"] was a field claims representative for...
To continue reading
Request your trial