Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co. v. State, Div. of Ins.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82CA1178,82CA1178 |
| Citation | 682 P.2d 486 |
| Parties | NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE of Colorado, DIVISION OF INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Holm & Christensen, P.C., Steven A. Christensen, Jon L. Holm, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Robert M. Howard, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The Division of Insurance appeals a district court judgment reversing its order in which it imposed a fine on Northwestern National Casualty Company for violation of the insurance code. We reverse.
The Division initiated an agency action to revoke or suspend the licenses of, or to impose fines against, Northwestern and Patrick Hickey, an insurance agent and broker, following receipt of a complaint from insureds Bob and Gayle Davidson.
The complaint alleged that the insureds had purchased a Northwestern automobile insurance policy in December 1977. Hickey, who was licensed both as an insurance agent and insurance broker, sold them the policy. Northwestern contacted Hickey several times between February and April 1978, directing him to obtain additional information from the insureds regarding their automobiles. Hickey did not inform the insureds about these requests. Because the requested information was not received, Northwestern sent a notice of non-renewal of the policy to the insureds on April 25, effective June 1, 1978.
The insureds then contacted Hickey, who assured them that all necessary information had been supplied and that the policy would remain in effect. The insureds had made all the necessary payments to keep the policy in effect.
In August 1978, the insureds' automobile was involved in an accident which would have been covered if the policy were in effect. They filed a claim under their policy with Northwestern. Northwestern refused to pay, contending that the policy had expired on June 1.
The Division filed charges against Northwestern and Hickey, alleging they had violated provisions of the insurance code. The Division alleged that Hickey, by failing to respond to Northwestern's requests for additional information, had acted in bad faith and with a lack of competence and trustworthiness in the business of insurance in violation of § 10-2-212, C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.) and § 10-3-1104, C.R.S.1973, and that his statement to insureds that they should not worry about the policy was a false, deceptive, and misleading representation in violation of § 10-3-1104, C.R.S.1973.
The Division alleged that Hickey was the agent of Northwestern and thus his actions were imputed to it, and alleged that Northwestern's failure to contact its insureds directly concerning the additional information violated § 10-3-1104(1)(a), and also violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in Northwestern's insurance contract with the insureds.
Following a hearing, the commissioner of insurance found that Hickey was at all relevant times the agent of Northwestern, and thus, his conduct, statements, and representations were imputed to it. The commissioner further found that Hickey's conduct, statements, and representations were false, deceptive, and misleading in violation of § 10-2-212(1)(f), (h), and (i), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.), and that these actions, statements, and representations were imputed to Northwestern, resulting in its violation of § 10-3-1104(1)(a) and (b), C.R.S.1973. The commissioner also found that Northwestern's non-renewal of the insureds' policy was done in bad faith and was contrary to the provisions of § 10-4-720, C.R.S.1973, and that the action violated § 10-3-1104(1)(a)(I) and (b), C.R.S.1973, and also that Northwestern knew or should have known that it was in violation of § 10-3-1101, et seq., C.R.S.1973, relating to unfair competition and deceptive practices.
Hickey's insurance license was suspended for six months and Northwestern was fined $1,000. Northwestern sought judicial review of the agency decision pursuant to § 24-4-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973. The district court reversed, ruling that Hickey was not Northwestern's agent and that Northwestern was not bound by his conduct, statements, and representations.
As the district court noted, the central issue in this proceeding concerns the determination of the relationship between Hickey and Northwestern. The court found that Hickey's relationship was that of an independent contractor and that Hickey was an agent of the insureds, not the insurer. We disagree.
Northwestern stipulated certain facts in this matter, one of which was:
"Respondent, Patrick L. Hickey, was at all times relevant to this hearing an insurance agent duly appointed by Northwestern National Casualty Company to represent it and to solicit, sell and service policies of motor vehicle insurance on its behalf." (emphasis added)
Another was:
"On or about December 1977, respondent, Northwestern National Casualty Company, through its insurance agent, Patrick L. Hickey, issued a motor vehicle insurance policy ... to its insureds, Bob F. and Gayle Davidson ...." (emphasis added)
Section 10-2-203(1), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.) provides:
"Every insurance agent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singh v. Mortensun
...an admission by the defendant of the material allegations contained in the complaint. See Northwestern National Casualty Co. v. State Division of Insurance, 682 P.2d 486 (Colo. App.1983). The entry of a failure to defend default is a ministerial act delegated to the clerk. C.R.C.P. 55(a). T......
-
Kempter v. Hurd
...n. 1 (Chadbourne rev. 1981). Judicial admissions are conclusive on the party making them, id.; Northwestern National Casualty Co. v. State Division of Insurance, 682 P.2d 486 (Colo.App.1983), and generally continue to have effect for a subsequent part of the same proceedings. 9 J. Wigmore, ......
-
Durbin v. Bonanza Corp.
...who makes them and may constitute the basis for a judgment. Kempter v. Hurd, 713 P.2d 1274 (Colo.1986); Northwestern National Casualty Co. v. State, 682 P.2d 486 (Colo.App.1983). A party may stipulate away valuable rights provided it is not in violation of public policy. Kempter v. Hurd, Al......
-
Maloney v. Brassfield
...Stipulation “Stipulations are a form of judicial admission,” and “are binding on the party who makes them.” Northwestern Nat'l Cas. Co. v. State, 682 P.2d 486, 489 (Colo.App.1983). “Generally speaking, counsel may stipulate as to evidentiary matters such as the admission, exclusion, or with......
-
Litigating the "deemer" Statute: Brokers in Insurance Litigation
...19. Life Inv. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 833 P.2d 864 (Colo.App. 1992). 20. Id. at 867-68. 21. Northwestern Nat'l Cas. Co. v. State Div. of Ins., 682 P.2d 486 (Colo.App. 1983). 22. Id. at 488-89. ...