Phillips v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 79182,79182,3 |
| Citation | 867 P.2d 1361,1993 OK CIV APP 199 |
| Parties | 1993 OK CIV APP 199 Connie PHILLIPS and Frederick Phillips, Appellants, v. OKLAHOMA FARMERS UNION MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation, Appellee, v. Scott GORDON, Third-Party Defendant. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County; Roy Moore, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Ron Collier, Teresa A. Simmons, Collier Law Office, Lawton, for appellants.
Kenneth A. Brokaw, Stewart & Elder, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
Connie Phillips and Frederick Phillips (Connie, Frederick or collectively, the Phillips) seek review of the Trial Court's pre-trial orders denying leave to amend and bifurcating trial of the Phillips' claims against the tortfeasor, third-party defendant Scott Gordon (Gordon), and the Phillips' uninsured/underinsured (UM) insurance carrier, Oklahoma Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company (OFU). Herein, the Phillips assert error of the Trial Court (1) in denying leave to amend by which the Phillips sought to add a bad faith claim against OFU, the effect of which denying the Phillips their rightful option to proceed only against their UM carrier, and (2) in granting OFU's motion to bifurcate, the Trial Court erroneously reasoning that judgment against the tortfeasor constituted a condition precedent to a direct action against the UM carrier.
In October 1988, Connie and Frederick allegedly suffered injury in an automobile accident with Gordon. In September 1990, the Phillips commenced the instant action against Gordon and OFU. OFU answered, denying Gordon was an uninsured/underinsured motorist.
In December 1990, the Trial Court entered a scheduling order prohibiting joinder of parties or amendment of pleadings after January 10, 1991. On January 21, 1991, the Trial Court conducted pre-trial conference; on that date, OFU filed its motion to bifurcate. In the Court's pre-trial order, the Trial Court granted bifurcation.
On April 29, 1991, over four months after the Trial Court's terminal date for amendment and after entry of the Trial Court's order granting bifurcation, the Phillips sought leave to amend to add a bad faith claim against OFU, to which OFU objected. On April 30, 1991, the Phillips dismissed their claims against Gordon without prejudice.
On August 13, 1991, the Trial Court denied Phillips' motion to amend. On August 27, 1991, OFU filed a third-party claim against Gordon and motions to re-align the parties (to again reflect Gordon as a defendant on the Phillips' claims) and to bifurcate. In October 1991, the Trial Court granted the motions to realign/bifurcate.
In January 1992, the matter came on for jury trial. After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for Gordon on Frederick's claims, and for Connie, finding Gordon eighty percent (80%) negligent and Connie twenty percent (20%) negligent. The jury determined Connie's damages in the sum of $4,500.00, resulting in a net award to Connie of $3,600.00, 1 a sum less than Gordon's liability insurance limits.
In this appeal, the Phillips do not challenge the jury verdict for Connie and against Frederick. Rather, the Phillips challenge only the Trial Court's rulings denying leave to add a bad faith claim against OFU and granting OFU's motion to bifurcate trial on the Phillips' claims against Gordon and OFU. Thus, the Phillips here assert (1) an undeniable right to proceed directly against their UM carrier, and (2) the inextricable interrelationship of their contract 2 and tort 3 claims against OFU, rendering the Trial Court's orders denying leave to amend and granting bifurcation in error, and mandating new trial.
We first note that Oklahoma law recognizes a valid cause of action by an insured directly against his/her own UM carrier for bad faith breach of the insurance contract. 4 We further note that an insured may, at his/her option, proceed against the uninsured/underinsured tortfeasor alone, the UM insurer alone or join both in a single action. 5 Trial of issues against both the tortfeasor and the UM carrier in a single action constitutes a matter within the Trial Court's discretion upon a determination of no resulting prejudice to the insurer by trial of the joined claims in a single action. 6
In the present case, however, we find no error as alleged. First, the Trial Court retains broad discretion to enforce the provisions of pre-trial orders, and the Trial Court's rulings in such matters will not be disturbed unless affected by abuse of that discretion. 7 Considering that the Phillips' application to amend came over four months after the Trial Court's terminal date for amendment set out in the pre-trial scheduling order, we find no such abuse in the present case. Second, allowance of amendment and bifurcation of trials also fall within the discretionary powers of the Trial Court, 8 and we find no abuse of discretion by the Trial Court in these matters. 9
Third, the Phillips' requested amendment does not appear of record, and we are thus unable to determine the grounds for Phillips' bad faith claim. 10 If, however, as the parties suggest, the Phillips grounded their bad faith claim on allegations of OFU's unreasonable failure to affect settlement of the Phillips' claim in excess of the tortfeasor's liability limits and thus within the UM provisions of the Phillips' OFU policy, the jury verdict for Connie in a sum far less than the tortfeasor's minimum liability insurance limit militates against a viable bad faith claim. 11 We therefore hold the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion either in denying the Phillips' application to amend or in granting OFU's motion to bifurcate.
The orders of the Trial Court are therefore AFFIRMED.
1 That is, the jury's verdict of $4,500.00 reduced by the percentage of Connie's comparative negligence.
2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurlbut v. Morrow, 96,599.
...to deny an application to amend a pleading for failure to comply with a pretrial scheduling order. Phillips v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 199, 867 P.2d 1361. ¶ 17 Additionally, all parties had been deposed prior to Morrow's counterclaim. Allowing Morrow's new clai......
-
Hull v. Hull, 93,333.
...pre-trial orders will not be disturbed unless they are affected by an abuse of that discretion. Phillips v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mutual Ins. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 199, 867 P.2d 1361, 1363. Likewise, whether to grant a request for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial co......