Lanferman v. Md. Cas. Co. of Balt.
| Citation | 222 Wis. 406,267 N.W. 300 |
| Parties | LANFERMAN v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. OF BALTIMORE. |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1936 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Charles L. Aarons, Judge.
Affirmed.
Action by R. H. Lanferman against the Maryland Casualty Company of Baltimore, commenced January 18, 1932. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered November 29, 1935, the defendant appeals.
The defendant issued to the plaintiff its policy whereby it agreed to indemnify the plaintiff to the extent of $5,000 against all damages for personal injuries that might be recovered against him through the operation of his automobile. It also by said policy agreed to defend such actions as might be brought against him to recover for injuries so inflicted and to pay all the costs incident to such actions. It reserved to itself the sole control of such actions and prohibited the plaintiff from effecting a settlement of any such action without the consent of the defendant. The plaintiff was sued by one Tomasik to recover for personal injuries to him alleged to have been inflicted by plaintiff in the operation of his automobile, and Tomasik recovered a judgment in said action for $15,223.97. See Tomasik v. Lanferman, 206 Wis. 94, 238 N.W. 857. The complaint herein alleges that the said case might have been settled by the defendant for a sum within the limits of said policy, and that the plaintiff through his attorney employed to protect his interests demanded of the defendant that it so settle said case, but that the defendant failed and refused so to settle and acted in bad faith in so doing. Judgment was demanded for the damages the plaintiff sustained through the defendant's such failure and refusal. On trial a jury by special verdict found, among other facts evidentiary rather than ultimate, that during the trial of the Tomasik Case, Tomasik's attorney offered to settle the case for $5,000 and costs; that the attorney of the defendant herein, who was conducting the defense of said case, offered to settle for $5,000; and that the defendant “in failing to come to an agreement with Tomasik's attorney for the settlement of the case for the amount of the policy limit” acted “in bad faith in respect to its duty to Lanferman.” The court on this verdict entered judgment for the sum of $12,780 damages, the excess of the judgment in the Tomasik Case over the policy limit and interest thereon from the date of the judgment, with costs of the action. Such other facts as are necessary to an understanding of the decision are stated in the opinion.
Coleman & Barry, of Milwaukee (James E. Coleman, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.
Corrigan, Backus, Sullivan & Backus, of Milwaukee (A. C. Backus, Jr., of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondent.
[1] The appellant concedes that, under its contract reserving to itself absolute control of litigation if its decision not to settle the Tomasik Case that it defended for the plaintiff was made in bad faith, it must respond in damages to the plaintiff. Hilker v. Western Automobile Ins. Co., 204 Wis. 1, 231 N.W. 257, 235 N.W. 413. Its main contention is that the jury's finding of bad faith in failing to come to an agreement with the plaintiff's attorneys for settlement of the case within the policy limits is not supported by the evidence.
[2] The jury found that Tomasik's counsel during the progress of the trial offered to settle for $5,000 and costs, and that defendant's counsel offered to pay $5,000 in settlement. This implies a failure and refusal to settle for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kranzush v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co.
...Wis.2d 197, 107 N.W.2d 261 (1961); Berk v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., 245 Wis. 597, 15 N.W.2d 834 (1944); Lanferman v. Maryland Casualty Co., 222 Wis. 406, 267 N.W. 300 (1936). A second basis for a bad faith claim may arise from an insurer's handling of an insured's claim under a casual......
-
A.W. Huss Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.
...Wis.2d 197, 107 N.W.2d 261 (1961); Berk v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., 245 Wis. 597, 15 N.W.2d 834 (1944); Lanferman v. Maryland Casualty Co., 222 Wis. 406, 267 N.W. 300 (1936); Schwartz v. Norwich Union Indemnity Co., 212 Wis. 593, 250 N.W. 446 (1933). For example, the court in Alt obse......
-
Brown v. Guarantee Ins. Co.
...have found that defendant breached its duty to exercise good faith when it refused to settle for $5,000. See Lanferman v. Maryland Casualty Co., 22 Wis. 406, 267 N.W. 300. Defendant argues that payment by the insured of the amount of the judgment in excess of the policy limit is a prerequis......
-
Norwood v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...seriousness of the claims asserted against the insured and that a settlement could be had for much less than the indemnity coverage. In the Lanferman case the insurer knew from its own investigation that a judgment in excess of the policy coverage could be expected against the insured and t......