Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1973 |
| Citation | 267 Or. 397,517 P.2d 262 |
| Parties | Jerry STUBBLEFIELD, Appellant, v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
David A. Vinson, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Sahlstrom, Lombard, Starr & Vinson and E. B. Sahlstrom, Eugene.
Richard Bryson, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Calkins & Calkins and Bryson & Robert, Eugene.
This is an action against an insurance company by the husband of a woman who was allegedly enticed by a doctor insured by the defendant to engage in sexual intercourse with him and also with third persons in his presence.
Plaintiff had previously filed an action for alienation of affections and for criminal conversation against the insured. The insurance company had refused to defend that action. The plaintiff then made a settlement with the insured under which a judgment for $50,000 was entered against him, but with a prior 'covenant not to execute' against the insured for any amount in excess of $5,000. The insured also executed an 'assignment' to plaintiff of all sums in excess of $5,000 due to him and all claims in excess of that amount against the insurance company arising out of the insurance policy issued by it to the doctor.
Plaintiff then filed this action against the insurance company. The answer filed by it alleged, among other things, that the complaint in the previous action against the insured 'alleged causes of action based upon intentional acts' of the insured and that 'said intentional acts were not covered by defendant's policy of insurance.'
The case was tried before the court, sitting without a jury, largely on stipulated facts. The court then made general findings 'in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.' Plaintiff appeals from the resulting judgment. We affirm.
Plaintiff contends that defendant owed a duty to defend its insured because (1) 'a two count complaint filed against its insured contained one count alleging unintended harm' (i.e., criminal conversation) and (2) 'an average insured would have reasonably expected a defense under the defendant's insurance policy.' Plaintiff also contends that under such a 'blanket comprehensive liability policy' the defendant 'owed a duty to pay a victim whose personal injuries were caused by its insured.'
Defendant responds by contending that (1) 'the duty to defend is not an issue'; (2) defendant had no duty to pay because the insurance policy 'did not cover harm that was intended or to be expected'; (3) that public policy prevents payment in such a case and that, in any event, (4) plaintiff acquired no rights against defendant by the assignment or by the judgment.
These contentions raise a number of important questions relating to the possible ambiguity of this insurance policy and the 'reasonable expectations' of the purchaser of such a policy, as well as the extent to which the public policy against the indemnification of a wrongdoer may or may not be applicable so as to foreclose recovery in a case such as this. We need not consider or decide those questions in this case, however, because of the nature and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griggs v. Bertram
...of the consent judgment, (the insureds) were not legally obligated to pay damages to plaintiff"); Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 Or. 397, 517 P.2d 262, 264 (1973) (even where covenant not to execute existed separate and apart from consent judgment, insurer was not liab......
-
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell
...Co., 17 N.C.App. 292, 193 S.E.2d 773, 774, cert. denied, 283 N.C. 257, 195 S.E.2d 689 (1973); Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 Or. 397, 517 P.2d 262, 264 (1973) (en banc); see also Roach v. Estate of Ravenstein, 326 F.Supp. 830, 839 (S.D.Iowa 1971) (characterizing settle......
-
Strahin v. Sullivan
...of plaintiffs' cause of action. Hamilton, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d at 323-24, 41 P.3d 128. Additionally, in Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 267 Or. 397, 517 P.2d 262 (1973), the plaintiff sued the defendant for alienation of affections. The parties entered into a stipulated jud......
-
Brownstone Homes Condo. Ass'n v. Brownstone Forest Heights, LLC
...action against the insurer, however, the trial court dismissed the action on the ground that, under Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 267 Or. 397, 517 P.2d 262 (1973), the covenant not to execute had released the contractor from any obligation to pay the homeowners association and, in......
-
Changes To The Interpretation Of Excess Insurance Coverage Provisions
...the contractor and district. Great American argued that this case is identical to Stubbelfield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 267 Or 397, 517 P2d 262 (1973), and that here, the contractor had no legal liability to the district because the district entered into an agreement to assign with th......
-
Chapter 5
...not to execute excuses insurance company from coverage obligation). Oregon: Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 517 P.2d 262 (Or. 1973) (consent judgment or agreement not to execute excuses insurance company from coverage obligation); Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gibson,......
-
CHAPTER 5 Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance: Coverage A for "Bodily Injury" or "Property Damage" Liabilities
...not to execute excuses insurance company from coverage obligation). Oregon: Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 517 P.2d 262 (Or. 1973) (consent judgment or agreement not to execute excuses insurance company from coverage obligation); Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gibson,......
-
§ 31.3 Settlement Elements and Types of Settlement Agreements
...746 P2d 245 (1987). NOTE: In Oregon Mut. Ins. Co., the court relied, in part, on Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 267 Or 397, 517 P2d 262 (1973), in its discussion of covenants not to execute. Stubblefield has since been overruled by the Oregon Supreme Court. Brownstone Homes Condo. ......
-
§17.1 Indemnity
...of an insurance case, the court in Lancaster revisited and clarified its holding in Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 267 Or 397, 517 P2d 262 (1973): The key to Stubblefield is found in the language of the covenant, not in its timing. In Stubblefield, an unconditional covenant precede......