Murphy v. MID-WEST NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE
Decision Date | 09 October 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 28510.,28510. |
Citation | 78 P.3d 766,139 Idaho 330 |
Parties | Mark George MURPHY and Jannett Marie Murphy, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MID-WEST NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE, a UICI company, Defendant-Appellant, and James Parish, individually and as agent; John Doe and Jane Doe, individually and/or as husband and wife; Does I through X; and Business Entities, Does I through X, Defendants. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Elam & Burke, P.A., Boise, for appellants. Jeffrey A. Thomson argued.
Pedersen and Jackson, Twin Falls, for respondents. Jarom A. Whitehead argued.
Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee (Mid-West) appeals the district court's ruling that the provision in the insurance policy it sold to Mark and Jannett Murphy (Murphys) that compels arbitration in disputes over policy coverage is unenforceable.
In April of 2000 Mid-West issued a health insurance policy to the Murphys. The policy was acquired through an independent sales agent, James Parish, and covered Mark Murphy as the insured and Jannett, Cody, Lexa, and Tayla Murphy as his dependents. In December of 2000, Mark Murphy was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and submitted a claim to Mid-West for the treatment of his illness. Mid-West refused to pay the claim, and the Murphys filed suit against Mid-West.
Mid-West moved to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration pursuant to a clause in the insurance policy which provides that "if the claim is $10,000 or less, the dispute shall be settled by arbitration if either one of us demands arbitration." The Murphys unpaid medical expenses were less than $10,000.
The district court denied Mid-West's motions on the grounds that the provision in the policy allocating the costs of arbitration was unconscionable and thus revocable under I.C. § 7-901. The relevant provision in the policy states:
Each party shall pay the costs of its arbitrator. The parties shall bear equally the expenses of the third arbiter and all other expenses of arbitration. Attorney fees and expenses for witnesses, will not be deemed to be expenses of arbitration, but will be borne by the party incurring them.
I.C. § 7-901 states:
(emphasis added). The district court determined that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because insurance contracts by their nature are contracts of adhesion giving rise to an automatic disparity in the bargaining positions between the insurer and the insured. Further, the provision was substantively unconscionable because the costs of arbitration would be so prohibitively expensive that the Murphys would have to forgo some or all of their claims. Specifically, the district court noted that even while Mid-West had agreed to use only one non-doctor arbitrator, the cost of that arbitrator plus the costs of witnesses and attorney fees was at a minimum $2,500, more than the Murphys could afford. Based upon these determinations the district court ruled the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Mid-West appealed.
In disputes involving arbitration, this court has stated:
"The question of arbitrability is a question of law properly decided by the court." Local 2-652 v. EG & G Idaho, Inc., 115 Idaho 671, 674, 769 P.2d 548, 551 (1989), citing AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986). When questions of law are presented, this court exercises free review and is not bound by findings of the district court, but is free to draw its own conclusions from the evidence presented. Mutual of Enumclaw v. Box, 127 Idaho 851, 852, 908 P.2d 153, 154 (1995), citing Automobile Club Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 124 Idaho 874, 876, 865 P.2d 965, 967 (1993).
Lewis v. CEDU Educational Services, Inc., 135 Idaho 139, 142, 15 P.3d 1147, 1150 (2000). As for the review of factual findings by the district court, namely that arbitration as set forth by Appellant's policy was prohibitively expensive for the Murphys, this Court has stated, "[o]ur rule has been that on appeal district court findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous." Loomis, Inc. v. Cudahy, 104 Idaho 106, 110, 656 P.2d 1359, 1365 (citing I.R.C.P 52(a)).
877 (2003), this Court determined that unconscionability is a ground for invalidating an arbitration agreement. However, "[f]or a contract or contractual provision to be voided as unconscionable, it must be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable." Id. at 586, 72 P.3d at 882. Lovey established the requirements to find unconscionability. As in Lovey, there is no showing of procedural or substantive unconscionability in this case.
While there is no showing of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno
...256, 269–270;Brady v. Williams Capital Group, L.P. (2009) 64 A.D.3d 127, 135–136, 878 N.Y.S.2d 693;Murphy v. Mid–West Nat. Life Ins. Co. of Tennessee (2003) 139 Idaho 330, 78 P.3d 766, 768.) Despite the dire assertion that our approach to unconscionability is “hopelessly vague and unworkabl......
-
McNeal v. Idaho Public Utilities Com'n
...the arbitration clause, finding it to be enforceable, distinguishing this Court's prior ruling in Murphy v. Mid-West National Life Ins. Co., 139 Idaho 330, 78 P.3d 766 (2003). The Commission's points of distinction are well taken. The arbitration clause in this case does not mandate the opp......
-
TMI, Inc. v. Brooks, No. 14-05-00604-CV (Tex. App. 1/9/2007)
...Rigas, 923 So.2d 1077, 1087 (Ala. 2005); Hottle v. BDO Seidman, L.L.P., 846 A.2d 862, 878 (Conn. 2004); Murphy v. Mid-West Nat'l Life Ins. Co. of Tenn., 78 P.3d 766, 768 (Idaho 2003); D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Green, 96 P.3d 1159, 1162 (Nev. 2004); Strand v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n ND, 2005 ND 68,......
-
Deeds v. Regence Blueshield of Idaho
...by the court. When questions of law are presented, this court exercises free review. . . .'" Murphy v. Mid-West Nat. Life Ins. Co. of Tennessee, 139 Idaho 330, 331 78 P.3d 766, 767 (2003) (internal citations The principal issues on appeal are (1) whether the district court's Order Lifting P......