Western World Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

• Citation: 376 A.2d 177,150 N.J.Super. 481
• Decision Date: 09 June 1977
• Docket Number: RICHARD-LEWIS
• Parties: WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent andCross-Appellant, v.AGENCY, Third-Party Defendant and Cross-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Page 481

150 N.J.Super. 481

376 A.2d 177

WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent andCross-Appellant, v. RICHARD-LEWIS AGENCY, Third-Party Defendant and Cross-Respondent.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued May 17, 1977.

Decided June 9, 1977.

Marc L. Dembling, Maplewood, for appellant Western World Ins. Co. (Lieb, Teich & Berlin, Morristown, attorneys; Jerome S. Lieb, Morristown, of counsel and on the brief).

Kent A. Losche, Hackensack, for respondent and cross-appellant Allstate Ins. Co. (Harwood, Lloyd, Kelly, Ryan, Coyle & Wulster, Hackensack, attorneys; Victor C. Harwood, III, Hackensack, of counsel and on the brief).

Edward M. Gurry, South Orange, for cross-respondent Richard-Lewis Agency (Gurry & Conlan, South Orange, attorneys).

Before Judges LORA, CRANE and MICHELS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

MICHELS, J. A. D.

Plaintiff Western World Insurance Company (Western World) appeals and defendant and third-party plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) cross-appeals from summary judgments of the Law Division.

The factual background and the issues raised on the motions for summary judgment before the Law Division are recounted in the opinion of that court which is reported at 140 N.J.Super. 338, 356 A.2d 83. Briefly, Western World instituted this action to recover moneys it paid in settlement of the claim of a passenger in a taxicab injured as the result of collision between the taxicab and another automobile. Allstate had issued the primary insurance coverage on the taxicab with limits of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident, and Western World had issued the excess liability insurance coverage with excess limits above the $10,000/$20,000 to $40,000 per person and $80,000 per accident. Allstate and Western World were both notified of the accident by the broker, third-party defendant Richard-Lewis Agency. The passenger instituted suit against the owner and operator of the taxicab as well as the operator of the other automobile involved in the collision. The Richard-Lewis Agency forwarded the summons and complaint to Allstate which undertook the defense of the claim on behalf of the owner and operator of the taxicab. Allstate was of the opinion that its assured taxicab operator would probably be held liable with the other driver and that the damage award could exceed the $10,000 limit of coverage provided by its policy. Notwithstanding its appraisal of the case, Allstate made no effort to settle the claim prior to trial, and apparently did not even enter into settlement negotiations after the passenger demanded $20,000 to settle the claim. The case was tried on a bifurcated basis. During the liability trial Allstate offered $7,500 to settle the case, but never offered the full $10,000 limit of its coverage. At the conclusion of the liability trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the passenger against the owner and operator of the taxicab, and absolved the operator of the other automobile. Western World was notified thereafter that the claim was in litigation, and demand was made upon it to pay any damages that might be awarded in excess of the primary coverage. Prior to the trial of damages Allstate and Western World agreed with the passenger to settle her claim for $20,000. Allstate paid its policy limit of $10,000, and Western World paid the remaining balance of $10,000 under protest, reserving its right to proceed against Allstate for reimbursement.

Western World thereupon instituted this action seeking to recover from Allstate the $10,000 paid in settlement of the claim, together with interest, counsel fees and costs. Western World claimed that Allstate violated the obligations and duties imposed upon it by the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance by (1) failing to notify Western World that the verdict might exceed the policy limits afforded by the primary coverage so that it could investigate, prepare and otherwise defend against such claim, and (2) negligently and improperly investigating and preparing the defense of the claim. Allstate denied that it was negligent or had breached any duty owing to Western World, and subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Richard-Lewis Agency seeking indemnification and contribution based on the theory that the agency breached a duty to notify Allstate that Western World was the excess carrier.

Thereafter Allstate and Richard-Lewis Agency moved for summary judgments. The trial judge granted Allstate's motion with respect to Western World, holding that there was no fiduciary duty owed by Allstate to Western World in the circumstances of this case, and that the principles enunciated in Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 323 A.2d 495 (1974), and Yeomans v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 N.J.Super. 48, 324 A.2d 906 (App.Div.1974), did not apply as between such carriers. The judge also granted summary judgment in favor of Richard-Lewis Agency against Allstate for the reason that the agency owed no duty to Allstate to notify it of the existence of the excess carrier. These appeals followed.

R. 4:46-1 permits a party to move for summary judgment at any time. If the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should be granted. R. 4:46-2. The moving party's burden in this regard is to exclude any reasonable doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact. All inferences of doubt are drawn against the moving party in...