Pringle v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 14 April 1971 |
| Parties | , 60 A.L.R.3d 1186 William Calvin PRINGLE, a minor, by Robert L. Frederickson, Guardian of the Estate of William Calvin Pringle, Appellant, v. Charles ROBERTSON, Defendant, and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
William F. Schulte, Portland, argued the cause for appellant on rehearing. With him on the briefs were Van Natta & Petersen, St. Helens.
Edwin J. Peterson, Portland, argued and reargued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Tooze, Powers, Kerr, Tooze & Peterson, Portland.
Before O'CONNELL, * C.J., and McALLISTER, DENECKE, HOLMAN, TONGUE, and HOWELL, JJ.
Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing. The petition was allowed and the case was reargued. Plaintiff asserts that we were mistaken in stating in our original opinion that there was no judicial authority for his position. He is correct. We did err in making the statement. The case of Shaw v. Botens, 403 F.2d 150 (3rd Cir. 1968), which was decided about the time the present proceeding was first heard by this court, is authority for his position.
Shaw does not give the injured plaintiff a right to garnish and prosecute the defendant's claim against the insurance company because plaintiff has any interest or right under the insurance policy. It construes Pennsylvania law to give that right to the injured plaintiff only as a judgment creditor of the defendant. Plaintiff concedes that any other creditor would have the same right to assert the claim who had a prior levy. The rationale of Shaw is that the defendant's right against the insurance company arises out of contract and is assignable and that the garnishment operates as an equitable assignment of the judgment debtor's rights against the insurance company. The case does not discuss whether it is desirable policy to let some third party determine whether the insured should assert that the insurance company has been negligent or guilty of bad faith in failing to settle the claim against him.
If it is good public policy, and we believe it is, not to allow third parties to decide whether such accusations should be made by way of judicial proceedings, it would seem to be irrelevant whether the duty of care and good faith was implied by the law because of a contract or whether the law imposed the duty in the absence of contract. A doctor's relation with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Candelora
...Insurance Co. v. Amick, 680 P.2d 362 (Okla.1984); Cue v. Casualty Corp. of America, 537 P.2d 349 (Okla.App.1975); Pringle v. Robertson, 258 Or. 389, 483 P.2d 814 (1971); Auclair v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 505 A.2d 431 (R.I.1986); Whittington v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 263 ......
-
Rutter v. King
...Mutual Casualty Co., 88 Ill.App.2d 343, 232 N.E.2d 155 (1967); Pringle v. Robertson, 258 Or. 389, 465 P.2d 223 (1970), reh. den., 483 P.2d 814 (1971).6 Thompson, supra, rests heavily on the rationale in the landmark decision of Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla.1969), which held that......
-
Brownstone Homes Condo. Ass'n v. Brownstone Forest Heights, LLC
...in "bad faith" and negligence cases was contrary to public policy principles that this court had recognized in Pringle v. Robertson, 258 Or. 389, 483 P.2d 814 (1971).3 He also noted that, under then-extant law, an insured defendant could assign a "bad faith" refusal to settle claim against ......
-
Scroggins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 77-1941
... ... (Yelm v. Country Mut. Ins. Co. (1970), 123 Ill.App.2d 401, 404, 259 N.E.2d 83; Bennett v. Slater (1972), 154 Ind.App. 67, 289 N.E.2d 144; Pringle v. Robertson (1970), 258 Or. 389, 393, 465 P.2d 223, Adhered to on rehearing (1971), 258 Or. 394, 483 P.2d 814; other cases cited in Annot., 63 ... ...