G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co.
15 S.W.2d 544, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 1303 (1929)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An indemnity insurer, by assuming exclusive control over litigation and settlement negotiations, owes a duty of ordinary care and prudence to the insured when considering settlement offers and may be held liable for negligence if its failure to settle within policy limits results in an excess judgment against the insured.
Facts:
- American Indemnity Company issued an automobile liability insurance policy to G. A. Stowers Furniture Company, agreeing to indemnify Stowers for bodily injuries up to $5,000 and reserving the exclusive right to defend suits and settle claims.
- On January 23, 1920, a G. A. Stowers Furniture Company truck, left disabled and unlit on Austin street, was struck by a Ford coupé, causing severe injuries to Miss Mamie Bichon.
- Around March 3, 1920, Miss Mamie Bichon filed a lawsuit against G. A. Stowers Furniture Company seeking $20,000 in damages for her injuries.
- American Indemnity Company took charge of the defense of Miss Bichon's suit on behalf of G. A. Stowers Furniture Company, as stipulated in the insurance policy.
- During the pendency of the suit and before trial, Miss Bichon offered to accept $4,000 in full settlement for her damages, which was within the policy's $5,000 limit.
- American Indemnity Company refused the $4,000 settlement offer, offering only $2,500 instead, despite allegedly knowing that the case was dangerous and likely to result in a judgment for more than the policy limit.
Procedural Posture:
- G. A. Stowers Furniture Company sued American Indemnity Company in district court (the trial court) for damages, alleging the insurer's negligent failure to settle Miss Bichon's claim within policy limits.
- At the close of testimony, the district court withdrew the case from the jury and entered judgment for American Indemnity Company.
- G. A. Stowers Furniture Company appealed the district court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the indemnity company was only obligated to faithfully defend the suit and had no duty to settle.
- G. A. Stowers Furniture Company then filed a writ of error, which the Supreme Court of Texas granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an indemnity insurer, upon assuming complete control over litigation and settlement for an assured, owe a duty of ordinary care and prudence to the assured to settle a claim within policy limits, and can it be held liable for damages exceeding those limits if it negligently fails to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - Oritz, J.
Yes, an indemnity insurer owes a duty of ordinary care and prudence to its insured when it assumes complete control over litigation and settlement negotiations. The court reasoned that when an insurance company contracts for and takes complete and exclusive control of a lawsuit against the assured, effectively prohibiting the assured from making any settlement without the company's consent, the insurer assumes the responsibility to act as the "exclusive and absolute agent" of the assured in all matters pertaining to the litigation. As such an agent, the insurer is obligated to exercise the degree of care and diligence that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise in managing their own business, especially when their interests may conflict with those of the assured. If an ordinarily prudent person, acting with ordinary care from the assured's perspective, would have settled the case for the amount offered within policy limits, then the insurer's failure or refusal to do so constitutes negligence, for which it should be held liable in damages, even if the judgment exceeds the policy amount. The court referenced cases like Douglas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. and Mendota Electric Co. v. New York Indemnity Co. to support this 'negligence rule,' emphasizing that exclusive authority carries a corresponding duty of care and prevents arbitrary action.
Analysis:
This case is profoundly significant as it established the 'negligence rule' in Texas, shifting the standard for insurer liability in settlement decisions from 'bad faith' to 'ordinary care and prudence.' This imposes a higher burden on insurers to diligently protect their insureds' interests, particularly when settlement offers are within policy limits. By emphasizing the insurer's agency role and exclusive control over litigation, the ruling ensures that insurers cannot act arbitrarily without considering the potential for excess judgments against their policyholders. This precedent encouraged more responsible and proactive settlement practices among insurers, compelling them to evaluate claims with the same care and prudence as if they were directly bearing the full risk, thereby offering greater protection to insureds.
