Murray v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1963
• Docket Number: No. 36523,36523
• Citation: 61 Wn.2d 618,379 P.2d 731
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Edward F. MURRAY, Jr., and Margaret Murray, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Relator, The Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, the Honorable Solie M. Ringold, Judge, Respondent.

Page 618

61 Wn.2d 618

379 P.2d 731

Edward F. MURRAY, Jr., and Margaret Murray, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Relator The Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, the Honorable Solie M. Ringold, Judge, Respondent.

No. 36523.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.

March 14, 1963.

Elliott, Lee, Carney & Thomas, Nancy Ann Holman, Seattle, for plaintiffs.

Brodie & Fristoe, Doane Brodie, Olympia, John J. Kennett, Seattle, for respondent.

DONWORTH, Judge.

By writ of certiorari, defendant relator, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, seeks to review the action of the superior court for King County in denying relator's motion for a change of venue from King County to Thurston County.

Preliminarily, we dispose of the following matter. Relator has made a motion to quash the 'Return of Respondent Judge to Writ of Certiorari' because it was drafted by plaintiffs' attorneys and the contents were not shown to opposing counsel. The manner in which the respondent judge has the Return prepared is his own concern as long as he exercises his judgment in certifying it. That opposing counsel did not see the Return before it was filed is immaterial. The motion is denied.

Relator executed and delivered an automobile liability insurance policy to plaintiffs' assignor, Charles D. Mossman. Subsequently, the insured, Charles D. Mossman, was involved in an automobile accident which resulted in a lawsuit against him in Thurston County. Pursuant to the insurance contract, relator defended the suit and controlled that side of the litigation. Relator refused an offer by the plaintiffs in that action to settle within the liability limits of the policy.

The lawsuit culminated in a judgment against the insured and in favor of Edward F. Murray, Jr., and Margaret Murray his wife, for injuries sustained by the wife; this was affirmed in Murray v. Mossman, 52 Wash.2d 885, 329 P.2d 1089 (1958). The judgment was in excess of the insurance coverage and the relator refused to pay beyond its specified liability.

The judgment creditors in the above action brought a garnishment proceeding in an attempt to avail themselves of a chosein-action belonging to the judgment debtor, a claim of the insured against the insurer for failure, through negligence or bad faith, to settle within the limits of liability contained in the insurance policy. In Murray v. Mossman, 56 Wash.2d 909, 355 P.2d 985 (1960), we held that the judgment creditors could not litigate the judgment debtor's right against the insurer in a garnishment proceeding. In the present litigation, the plaintiffs, assignees of the insured's rights against relator, instituted this action in King County. It is now contended by relator that the rights of the insured are based upon the insurance contract and relator's alleged breach of its contractual duty to adequately provide the insured with legal representation.

There is only one assignment of error:

'The venue in the instant action is controlled by RCW 48.05.220, which commands that it lie in the county where the cause of action arose, namely, Thurston County.'

RCW 48.05.220 provides:

'Suit upon causes of action arising within this state against an insurer upon an insurance contract shall be brought in the county where the cause of action arose.'

It is relator's argument that the instant cause of action of plaintiffs is 'upon an insurance contract,' and that the cause of action arose in Thurston County. If RCW 48.05.220 does not apply, relator cannot prevail.

In Evans v. Continental Casualty Co., 40 Wash.2d 614, 245 P.2d 470 (1952), it was held that, when an insurer refuses, in bad faith, to settle a tort claim asserted by an injured party, the insured could settle the tort claim against him, which far exceeded his liability coverage, and recover from the insurer the amount paid in settlement in excess of the limits of the policy. In the Evans case, one of the affirmative defenses of the insurer was that the insurance policy contained a provision that no action under the policy could be maintained unless the loss was first determined by a judgment. In disposing of this defense, we said:

'The present action, which is grounded upon the insurer's bad faith in failing to perform a contractual obligation, sounds in tort and, therefore, the 'no action' provision of the policy pleaded by appellant as an affirmative defense is inapplicable.'

That the insured's right of recovery sounds in tort was again expressed by this court in Murray v. Mossman, 56 Wash.2d 909, 355 P.2d 985 (1960). Were it not for the strong protestation of relator that we are limited in our inquiry of whether this suit is 'upon a contract' by the allegations in the complaint, we would be disposed to affirm the decision of the trial court on the basis of the holdings in the cases already cited. The general distinction between actions founded on tort and founded upon contract is well understood. However, for the purpose of deciding whether proper venue has been laid, the distinction may not be clear in a particular instant, especially in view of our present form of pleading.

In the case at bar, the gist of the action is stated in paragraphs XI, XV, and XVI of the complaint.

'XI. * * * That defendant had available to it, through investigation and the right to ask for additional medical examinations, additional evidence confirming the aforementioned depositions and medical reports to the effect that Margaret Murray was permanently and seriously injured, but that defendant negligently, and with a lack of good faith, failed to seek any additional medical examinations, or to additionally investigate the nature, extent, and permanency of Margaret Murray's injuries. * * *

'XV. That defendant negligently failed to make diligent and complete investigation of the facts and circumstances with respect to the manner in which the aforesaid accident occurred, and the nature and extent of the injuries which said Margaret Murray received therein, in violation of its contractual duty to Mossman, its insured.

'XVI. That defendant, in refusing to settle said action within its policy limits, utterly failed to exercise good faith in its relationship with defendant Mossman, and breached its contractual duty under the aforesaid policy of insurance issued by it to him.'

We believe from the allegations of the complaint that it is clear that the gravamen of plaintiffs' action against the relator is, first, relator's negligence and lack of good faith in investigating the extent of the injuries of Margaret Murray received in the automobile collision with Mossman, and, second, relator's lack of good faith in failing to settle within the liability limits of the insurance policy. The contract of insurance was only the inducement of the relationship between Mossman and relator insurance company that led to relator's undertaking the defense and control of the litigation against Mossman. It was this relationship which...