Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County

• Decision Date: 22 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 34729-6-II.,34729-6-II.
• Citation: 138 Wn. App. 757,158 P.3d 1231
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY, State of Washington and Pierce County Superior Court Clerk, Respondents.

158 P.3d 1231

138 Wn. App. 757

RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY, State of Washington and Pierce County Superior Court Clerk, Respondents.

No. 34729-6-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

May 22, 2007.

Brett Andrews Purtzer, Tacoma, WA, for Appellant.

Douglas Warren Vanscoy, Deputy Pros Atny, Glen Andrew Anderson, Office of the

Attorney General, Tacoma, WA, Respondents.

VAN DEREN, A.C.J.

¶ 1 This is the second appeal in Ranger Insurance Company's suit against Pierce County based on the Superior Court Clerk's distribution of Ranger Insurance Company's bail bond money for Granite State Insurance Company's bail bond obligations. In the first appeal, we remanded for trial on whether, in light of the limiting power of attorney accompanying each bond, the Superior Court Clerk (Clerk) properly relied on the dual agent's own representations to apply and disburse Ranger's funds for Granite State's obligations. On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment to Pierce County, finding that the Clerk did not violate the standard of care for court clerks in Washington. Ranger appeals, contending that disputes of material fact still exist about whether (1) the Clerk's conduct was negligent in light of the express limiting powers of attorney on each bond; and (2) the Clerk could rely solely on the agent's known representation of multiple bonding companies in the absence of Ranger's actions suggesting apparent authority to use Ranger's money for another bonding company's obligations. Because the County's summary judgment motion did not address this issue of material fact, we reverse and remand again for trial.

FACTS¹

¶ 2 Ranger Insurance Company's agent, Signature Bail Bonds, was an authorized bail bonds agent for both Ranger and Granite State. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *1, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *1. Signature wrote four appearance bonds in Pierce County to secure the appearance of two criminal defendants, David J. Rogers and Brandon E. Sims. Signature wrote one of the bonds ($15,000) on cause number 97-1-05295-7 from Ranger and the other three (a total of $20,000) from Granite State for cause number 97-1-05295-7 for Rogers, and cause number 00-1-01029-1 for Sims.

¶ 3 All four of the bonds were forfeited because Rogers and Sims failed to appear. Signature directed Ranger to send $35,000 to the clerk's registry to cover Rogers' forfeited bonds, misrepresenting to Ranger that two of its own bonds had been forfeited—the aforementioned $15,000 Ranger bond on cause number 97-1-05295-7 and a $20,000 Ranger bond on cause number 98-1-03952-5 that had not been forfeited. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *2, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *4. The actual status of the Ranger and Granite State bonds was as follows:

                1997 Rogers  97-1-05295-7  $15,000  Ranger Ins.   Forfeited
                1997 Rogers  97-1-05295-7  $10,000  Granite St.   Forfeited
                1998 Rogers  98-1-03952-5  $20,000  Ranger Ins.   Not Forfeited
                2000 Sims    00-1-01029-1  $ 5,800  Granite Ins.  Forfeited
                2000 Sims    00-1-01029-1  $ 4,200  Granite Ins.  Forfeited
                

Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *1, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *2.

¶ 4 It is not refuted that Ranger submitted, along with the check, an invoice requesting that the clerk's office allocate $20,000 to Rogers cause number 98-1-03952-5, which was not forfeited, and $15,000 to Rogers cause number 97-1-05295-7, which was later forfeited. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *2, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *4.² Furthermore, Ranger's $35,000 check to the Clerk referred to "State v. David Jack Rogers, Case No. 98-1-03952-5." Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *2, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *5. The Clerk entered the check for cause no. 98-1-03952-5 in the Pierce County Superior Court journal detail report as "cash bail." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 74. "The [C]lerk's actions were clearly in error, as Signature had previously posted a Ranger appearance bond for cause no. 98-1-03952-5." Ranger Ins, 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *2, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *5. Ranger had not posted any bonds for Sims.

¶ 5 Not only did Ranger direct that the $35,000 be used only for its obligations, but each of Ranger's bail bonds have a corresponding power of attorney certificate, which state:

This power void if altered or erased, void if used with other powers of this company or in combination with powers from any other surety company, void if used to furnish bail in excess of the stated face amount of this power, and can only be used once . . . and provided this Power-of-Attorney is filed with the bond and retained as a part of the court records.

CP at 15 (our emphases added).

¶ 6 After the Clerk received Ranger's instructions, Signature's manager³ directed the Clerk to apply Ranger's $35,000 check to cover Rogers' forfeited bond under cause number 97-1-05295-7 ($15,000), Rogers' Granite State forfeited bond under cause number 97-1-05295-7 ($10,000), and Sims' two forfeited bonds under cause number 00-1-01029-1 ($10,000). The Clerk did as Signature directed. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash. App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, *2, 2004 Wash. App. LEXIS 1894, at *5-6.

¶ 7 When Rogers and Sims were arrested, Signature filed to exonerate the forfeited bail moneys, "falsely stat[ing] that it, not Ranger, had paid the forfeited bonds." Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *3, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *6. Based on Signature's misrepresentations, the trial court entered orders directing the Clerk to return the forfeited bail money to Signature. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *3, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *7. The Clerk disbursed the $35,000 to Signature. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *3, 2004 Wash. App. LEXIS 1894, at *7 n. 2. But Signature never returned the money to Ranger. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *3, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *7.

¶ 8 On January 16, 2002, Ranger sued Pierce County, alleging that the Clerk was negligent in two ways: (1) disbursing Ranger's $20,000 for bonds written by Granite State;⁴ and (2) returning the forfeiture money to Signature, not Ranger. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *3, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *7. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) Ranger was bound by the acts of its agent, Signature, and (2) the Clerk was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. The trial court granted the County's summary judgment motion. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *3, 2004 Wash. App. LEXIS 1894, at *8.

¶ 9 Without reaching any remaining or potential issues that were not before us, including those relating to the Clerk's fiduciary responsibilities to persons required to pay money to its registry, we reversed for trial on the limited issues before us, concluding that (1) questions of material fact remained about whether, in light of the power of attorney accompanying each bond, Signature had apparent authority to receive money due Ranger that had been applied to Granite State's obligations; and (2) the Clerk did not have quasi-judicial immunity in handling Ranger's bail money because processing the money was a ministerial act. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at **3, 7, 8, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *8, *17-18, *22.

¶ 10 We held that Signature did not have actual authority to direct the Clerk to use Ranger's money for Granite State's obligations and that "the only real issue presented is whether Signature had apparent authority for its actions." Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *5, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *13. Thus, because "[r]easonable minds could differ as to whether Signature had actual or apparent authority to freely allocate Ranger bail moneys, and all of the facts necessary to determine this issue have not been presented," we remanded for a trial on Signature's apparent authority and rejected the trial court's reliance on Signature's own representations of authority.⁵ Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *3, 2004 Wash. App. LEXIS 1894, at *10. We directed the trial court to consider Ranger's objective manifestations regarding Signature's authority, as "apparent authority may not be inferred from the acts of an agent." Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *5, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *13.

¶ 11 We pointed out that Ranger's objective manifestations of Signature's authority were "contained in the bail bonds and the related powers of attorney filed with the court." Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *5, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *14. These documents informed the Clerk that Signature could act as Ranger's agent for Rogers' cases 97-1-05295-7 and 98-1-03952-5 and that Signature could not use its powers in combination with any other surety companies' powers. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *5, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *14.

¶ 12 The Clerk's reliance on a subjective belief that Signature could direct Ranger's funds contrary to Ranger's written directions posed questions of material fact about whether (1) that belief was reasonable; and (2) a clerk of ordinary prudence would make further inquiry about Signature's ability to direct Ranger's funds in light of the filed powers of attorney, the posted bail bond, and entry of "cash bail" on a preexisting bond that has not been forfeited. Ranger Ins., 122 Wash.App. 1077, 2004 WL 1834650, at *5, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1894, at *15.

¶ 13 On remand, without addressing the issue of apparent authority or any other legal or factual issues, the County moved for summary judgment based on a declaration from Joel McAllister, a manager of Finance and Information Services for the King County Department of Judicial Administration.⁶ McAllister's declaration incorporates the...