Lahti v. Finnish Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 June 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 28925
• Citation: 76 Mich.App. 398,256 N.W.2d 610
• Parties: Marcella Spagnotti LAHTI, Administratrix of the Estate of James A. Spagnotti, Deceased, Marcella Spagnotti Lahti, Individually, Joseph Spreitzer and Evelyn Spreitzer, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. FINNISH MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. 76 Mich.App. 398, 256 N.W.2d 610
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 610

256 N.W.2d 610

Marcella Spagnotti LAHTI, Administratrix of the Estate of James A. Spagnotti, Deceased, Marcella Spagnotti Lahti, Individually, Joseph Spreitzer and Evelyn Spreitzer Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. FINNISH MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 28925.

76 Mich.App. 398, 256 N.W.2d 610

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

June 20, 1977.

Released for Publication Aug. 18, 1977.

[76 MICHAPP 399] Wisti & Jaaskelainen by Kermit C. Bryant, Hancock, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Mikkola & Hiltunen by John A. Mikkola, Hancock, for defendant-appellee.

Before MAHER, P. J., and CAVANAGH and WALSH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs brought suit against defendant insurance company complaining of defendant's refusal to enter into a settlement agreement with an alleged tortfeasor, alleging the same facts in support of four counts sounding in negligence, interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of warranty, and infliction of mental anguish, and praying for a total of $1,500,000 in actual and punitive damages. Defendant moved for summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and from an order granting summary judgment for defendant, plaintiffs now appeal.

This litigation arose out of an automobile accident in which a car driven by a civilian employee of the United States Air Force failed to negotiate a curve and ran into the home of the plaintiffs Spreitzer. Plaintiff Lahti's decedent, a passenger in the car, was killed in the accident. Defendant paid the Spreitzers the face value of their homeowner's insurance policy to compensate them for the damage[76 MICHAPP 400] to their home, and the Spreitzers executed a subrogation agreement in favor of defendant insurance company in return for payment under the policy. Plaintiffs thereafter entered into negotiations with the Department of the Air Force, which offered to settle all claims for a specified sum, provided that defendant insurer entered into the proposed settlement. Plaintiffs approached defendant and requested that defendant enter into the settlement and agree to accept less than the amount to which it was entitled under the subrogation agreement. Defendant refused to accept less from the proposed settlement fund than the amount to which it was entitled under the subrogation agreement, and the settlement negotiations thereafter broke down. Plaintiffs and defendant thereafter brought suit against the United States in Federal District Court, and eventually accepted an out of court settlement in an amount considerably less than the original proposed settlement, and plaintiffs then brought this suit against defendant.

Summary judgment is appropriate in a negligence action, where the well pleaded facts in a plaintiff's complaint fail, as a matter of law, to establish that the defendant owed any duty to the plaintiff. See Levendoski v....