Transport Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 21 March 1972 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 29503. |
Citation | 340 F. Supp. 670 |
Parties | TRANSPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
William P. Cooney, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Lawrence A. Bohall, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This dispute between two insurance companies spans more than a decade and finally culminated in one challenging the good faith of the other. The plaintiff Transport Insurance Company (Transport) is the insurer for Allied Van Lines, Inc. Transport also insured William Dolan Frost and Phyllis Frost, d/b/a Frost Moving and Storage Company, when and only when Frost was engaging in the business of Allied Van Lines, Inc., Allied Van Lines, Inc., of Indiana, and Allied Van Line Terminal Company. The defendant Michigan Mutual Liability Insurance Company (Michigan Mutual) insured William Dolan Frost and Phyllis Frost, d/b/a Frost Moving and Storage Company. Michigan Mutual also insured Allied Van Lines, Inc., against liability "as a result of an occurrence arising out of operations conducted by the named insured (Frost) while not engaging in the business of Allied. With this insurance setting, the inevitable occurred. Frost was involved in an accident resulting in the death of Emil Ketola. Transport and Michigan Mutual could not agree on whose business Frost was engaged in when the accident occurred. It was necessary to resolve this issue to determine whether Transport or Michigan Mutual was contractually obligated to investigate and defend, settle or pay any judgment rendered against Frost and Allied.
The facts surrounding Frost's accident cannot be seriously disputed:
At all pertinent times, Frost and Allied operated under a lease agreement. In addition, Frost had an agency contract with Allied under which he agreed to make equipment owned by him available to Allied for use in Allied's business at the sole discretion of Frost. The contract also made Frost an agent of Allied and required him to estimate weight, collect charges, pack, crate, load, unload and deliver shipments of household goods for Allied. Frost agreed to perform his employment under Allied's complete and exclusive control, direction and supervision. The lease permitted Allied, a common carrier, to acquire vehicles for transportation of household goods. Under the lease, Frost agreed to furnish drivers and helpers and maintain the vehicles in good repair in compliance with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) requirements. Further, he had the duty to paint the vehicles to comply with ICC regulations. Frost was further obliged to bear the expense of fuel, oil, lubricant, tires and all other expenses including wages of drivers and helpers. The lease reserved to Allied the exclusive possession, supervision and control over the operation of the vehicles, drivers and helpers, including the time and place of arrival, departure and detention, routing and manner of operation during that period:
"Provided, however, that at such times during the term of this lease as the lessee Allied may not require the said vehicles to be used in the lessee's business, the lessor Frost may use the said vehicle or vehicles in its own business."
In addition, the lease further provided that the vehicles when used in the service of Allied would be operated by drivers under the direction and control of Allied, and further the drivers "shall conform to all rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission ...."
The administratrix of the estate of Emil Ketola instituted a state action and joined Frost and Allied as defendants. Transport, upon receiving notice of the suit, investigated the events leading to the accident. Thereafter, Transport tendered the defense of both Allied and Frost to the defendant. The defendant declined plaintiff's initial offer to defend, but eventually entered an appearance for Frost only. During the course of the Ketola trial, Allied requested the court to pose a special question to the jury for a determination of whether Frost was or was not engaged in the business of Allied at the time of the accident. The court refused the request. After due deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of $75,000.00 against both Frost and Allied. Thereafter, the parties moved for a Judgment N.O.V. The trial judge by written opinion held that Allied was liable to the estate under the Owner's Liability Statute,2 and stated further that whether Frost was "in the scope of his employment returning to Minneapolis on a direct route at the time of the accident" was a jury question. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, and held Allied liable as an owner, within the meaning of the Owner's Liability Statute. The Michigan Supreme Court ignored the question whether Frost was or was not acting in the scope of his employment.3 Therefore, at the conclusion of the state proceedings, a court had not yet ruled on the issue of whether Frost was engaged in the business of Allied when the accident occurred. If Frost were on Allied's business when the fatal accident occurred, Transport's policy would have indemnified both. However, if Frost were not on the business of Allied when the accident occurred, both Allied and Frost would be the insured of the defendant and the defendant's policy would have been primary.
Plaintiff's complaint here charges that Michigan Mutual knew or ought to have known that Frost was engaged in his own business and was not serving any interest of Allied when the accident occurred. Plaintiff further charges that defendant's failure to acknowledge this was an act of bad faith. The bad faith issue was tried to the court. The separate issue of whose business Frost was on when his accident occurred was tried to a jury. What seemed conspicuous to this court from the outset was finally put to rest by a jury. The jury found that Frost was not on the business of Allied when the accident occurred. Allied, as a matter of law, under this jury verdict is entitled to full indemnity from Frost. Plaintiff having paid the judgment is entitled to bring this bad faith action. National Farmers Union Property & Cas. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Group, 14 Utah 2d 89, 377 P.2d 786; Bennett v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 192 F.2d 748 (10th Cir.). An excess insurer having paid the excess loss has been held to be subrogated to the insured's rights against the primary insurer for bad faith refusal to settle. Plaintiff here, having paid the entire judgment, is the real party in interest. American Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. All American Bus Lines, 179 F.2d 7 (4 Cir.).
We must now decide whether, in the period prior to and after the trial on the Ketola claim, Michigan Mutual acted in "bad faith." If Michigan Mutual knew or ought to have known that Frost was not on Allied's business, it should have accepted the tender of the defense as to both Frost and Allied because it was contractually obliged to do so.
After the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford
...1951); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 285 F.2d 579 (10th Cir. 1960); Transport Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 340 F.Supp. 670 (E.D.Mich.1972); Peter v. Travelers Ins. Co., 375 F.Supp. 1347 (C.D.Calif.1974); Home Ins. Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 68......
-
Stockdale v. Jamison
...277, 165 N.W.2d 308 (1968), Foundation Reserve Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 388 F.2d 528 (CA 10, 1968), and Transport Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 340 F.Supp. 670 (ED Mich, 1972), also cited by plaintiffs, did not reach the failure to defend question, but were decided on the basis ......
-
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Medical Protective Co.
...courts applying Michigan law have also recognized a claim for subrogation by an excess insurer. Transport Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 340 F.Supp. 670 (E.D.Mich., 1972), rev'd in part on other grounds, 496 F.2d 265 (CA 6, 1974); see also Valentine, supra, where the court ......
-
Kangas v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...or set of facts would bring the claim within the coverage of the policy. Judge DeMascio, in Transport Insurance Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 340 F.Supp. 670, 676 (E.D.Mich., 1972), 1 stated the rule as follows: 'But, this general rule is not without exception as defendant......