Lerner v. General Ins. Co. of America, 770237
Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Citation | 219 Va. 101,245 S.E.2d 249 |
Docket Number | No. 770237,770237 |
Parties | Theodore N. LERNER et al., partners, doing business as Tysons Corner Regional Shopping Center v. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, trading as Safeco Insurance. Record |
Decision Date | 09 June 1978 |
William E. Donnelly, III, Fairfax (Gerald R. Walsh; McCandlish, Lillard, Bauknight, Church & Best, Fairfax, on brief), for plaintiffs in error.
Adelard L. Brault, Fairfax (Brault, Lewis, Geschickter & Palmer, Fairfax, on brief), for defendant in error.
Before I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
This case presents the question of an insurance company's responsibility to reimburse its insured for reasonable attorney fees and other costs expended by the insured in successfully defending a claim for punitive damages.
This policy was in full force and effect on August 8, 1973, when Patricia Cassidy and her young daughter, Michelle (the Cassidys), were alleged to have suffered damages. By their stipulations, the parties agreed that the event alleged by the Cassidys constituted an "occurrence" as defined in the policy and that the policy contained "no exclusions from coverage for punitive damages or claims for punitive damages."
The Cassidys filed suit against Tysons on April 30, 1974, seeking to recover compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 on account of alleged bodily injury suffered by Michelle Cassidy on August 8, 1973. When notified of this suit, Safeco advised Tysons that it would defend only against the claim for compensatory damages and that Tysons should secure separate legal representation for the punitive damage claim. Safeco further advised Tysons that Safeco "would decline to pay any award for punitive damages."
The stipulations further tell us "Tysons was obliged to secure separate legal representation to raise all matters of defense to the claims for punitive damages." At the conclusion of the Cassidys' evidence at trial of their action, the court held, as a matter of law, that the evidence was insufficient to support the claim for punitive damages and dismissed that claim. Tysons' counsel fees and other expenses in defending the punitive damages claim reasonably amounted to $4111.00.
On the basis of these facts, the trial court held that Safeco had no duty to defend Tysons against the claim for punitive damages because public policy prohibits insurance against indemnity for punitive damages.
We reverse. In doing so, however, we do not reach the public policy question * since decision on that issue, a matter best left to the General Assembly, is unnecessary to our...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. Parallel Design & Dev. Llc
...is obliged to defend its insured.” Parker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 222 Va. 33, 35, 278 S.E.2d 803 (1981) (quoting Lerner v. Safeco, 219 Va. 101, 104, 245 S.E.2d 249 (1978)) (emphasis added). Therefore, even if the insurance company shows that some of the claims are not covered, if the Cou......
-
Lott v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
...coverage. See VEPCO v. Northbrook Property & Cas. Ins., 252 Va. 265, 268, 475 S.E.2d 264, 265 (1996) ( quoting Lerner v. Safeco, 219 Va. 101, 104, 245 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1978)). This rule, often referred to as the Eight Corners Rule, requires a court to compare the four corners of the insuran......
-
Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Kline & Son Cement Repair
...& Power Co. v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 252 Va. 265, 475 S.E.2d 264, 265 (1996) (emphasis added) (quoting Lerner v. Safeco, 219 Va. 101, 245 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1978)). Indeed, "such a provision [to defend] places no obligation on the insurer to defend an action against an insured whe......
-
Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am.
...by the policy.” See id.; VEPCO v. Northbrook Property & Cas. Ins., 252 Va. 265, 475 S.E.2d 264, 265 (1996) (quoting Lerner v. Safeco, 219 Va. 101, 245 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1978) ). A burden-shifting framework governs duty to defend disputes. First, the insured must establish a prima facie case ......
-
Punitive damages: when, where and how they are covered.
...Automobile Association v. Webb, 369 S.E.2d 196 (Va. 1988) (automobile policy covered punitive damages). Lerner v. General Insurance Co., 245 S.E.2d 249 (Va. 1978) (insurer had duty to defend punitive damages claims ancillary to compensatory damages Lipscombe v. Security Insurance Co., 189 S......