Missouri Supreme Court Addresses Insurer Intervention, Garnishment Proceedings and Bad Faith Findings

by Williams Venker & Sanders
Contact

Allen v. Bryers and Atain Specialty Insurance Company,
— S.W.3d —, 2016 WL 7378560 (Mo. banc, December 20, 2016)

In a recent opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court addressed the timing for an insurer’s intervention in a case involving a Section 537.065 between the plaintiff and an insured, as well as the more-than-bare-bones showing required for a finding of insurer bad faith.

In the underlying action, plaintiff Allen obtained a $16 million personal injury award against defendant Bryers, the property and security manager for an apartment complex in Kansas City, after defendant’s handgun discharged and severely injured plaintiff while the plaintiff was on premises.  The defendant’s insurer informed defendant that there may not be coverage under the property owner’s policy given the nature of the altercation and injury.  The insurer reserved the right to deny coverage and then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal district court to determine coverage issues.

Shortly thereafter and while the declaratory judgment action was pending, plaintiff sent the insurer a letter demanding the policy limits ($1 million) in exchange for releasing all claims against defendant and the insurer.  Upon the insurer’s refusal to settle for the policy limits, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a Section 537.065 agreement, which allows a claimant and a tortfeasor to contract to limit recovery to insurance coverage.  The plaintiff then filed suit against defendant Bryers.  The insurer informed Bryers that it had retained counsel on his behalf under a reservation of rights to deny coverage, but Bryers refused to accept the insurer’s reservation of rights and counsel appointment.  Soon thereafter, defendant Bryers consented to the entry of judgment against him consistent with the Section 537.065 agreement.

After entry of judgment, the insurer filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking a stay of the personal injury action until the declaratory judgment action was resolved and to litigate the coverage issues.  It also asserted that an inherent conflict of interest existed between Bryers and the insurer.  The circuit court denied intervention, finding that because the insurer denied any and all coverage, it had no standing to contest the Section 537.065 agreement.  The circuit court then held a bench trial, at which Bryers offered no evidence and presented no defense, and entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $16 million.  After the judgment became final, the plaintiff filed an execution/garnishment/sequestration application with the insurer as garnishee.

In the garnishment proceedings, the insurer again denied Bryers was entitled to indemnity and asserted several other defenses, including that the Section 537.065 agreement was the result of fraud or collusion, that the judgment was unreasonable, that Bryers violated his duties under the policy, and that it had not acted in bad faith in handling the underlying claim.  Then, almost a year after the $16 million judgment became final, the insurer filed a second motion to intervene and a motion to set aside the underlying tort judgment on the basis of fraud.  The garnishment court overruled both motions, entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor and ordered the insurer to pay $16 million, stating the amount above the policy limits was appropriate because the insurer had breached its duty to defend and had failed to settle within the policy limit.

In addressing whether there was any circuit court error in refusing to allow the insurer to intervene, the Supreme Court noted the insurer had the right to appeal the circuit court’s initial denial of its application to intervene when the final judgment was entered in the underlying tort action.  Insurer did not do so and any circuit court error in denying that first motion was abandoned.  The second motion to intervene, filed almost a year after the underlying tort judgment was entered, was untimely as the circuit court lost jurisdiction over this matter 30 days after entry of judgment.  Insurer could not have filed an authorized after-trial motion to extend the circuit court’s jurisdiction because it was not a party to the action.

As to the insurer’s motion with the garnishment court to set aside the underlying tort judgment because it was the result of fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation, the Supreme Court noted the civil procedure rules allow such a motion to be filed only by parties, which the insurer was not.  The insurer failed to secure intervention in the underlying tort action on two separate occasions and never became a party to the suit.

As to the garnishment action, the Supreme Court found the insurer had wrongfully refused to defend Bryers.  Once the insurer unjustifiably refused to defend or provide coverage, then the insured was free to enter into the agreement with the plaintiff to limit his or her liability to the insurance policy limits.  The Court held the insurer had an opportunity to manage and control the underlying tort action but declined to do so at its own risk.  As a result, the insurer was bound by the result of the underlying litigation and cannot re-litigate any facts that were actually determined in the underlying case and were necessary to the judgment.

Finally, as to the insurer’s claim that the $16 million award in the garnishment action was excessive, the Court found that, while the garnishment court found the insurer had refused to defend and refused to settlement, it made no finding that the insurer had done so in bad faith.  Bad faith requires more than just an erroneous denial of coverage.  Rather, bad faith in this context is the intentional disregard of the financial interest of the insured in the hope of escaping the responsibility imposed upon the insurer by its policy.  Because the garnishment court did not make any explicit finding that the insurer had acted in bad faith, it erred in awarding the full amount of the underlying tort judgment, and plaintiff was entitled only to the policy limits of $1 million.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Williams Venker & Sanders | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Williams Venker & Sanders
Contact
more
less

Williams Venker & Sanders on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.