Moses v. Halstead
581 F.3d 1248, 2009 WL 2857187, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20023 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kansas choice-of-law rules, the law of the state where an insurance contract is made (lex loci contractus) governs the existence of an insurer's duty to settle in good faith, as this is a matter of substance. Under Kansas substantive law, a judgment creditor may bring a garnishment action against a tortfeasor's insurer for an excess judgment resulting from a negligent or bad faith refusal to settle, without needing an assignment of the claim from the insured.
Facts:
- On November 22, 1996, Chris Halstead wrecked a car in Missouri.
- The car was owned by Shelby Moses' father, a Kansas resident, and was insured under a policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company in Kansas.
- Shelby Moses, a passenger in the car, was injured in the accident.
- Shortly after the accident, Moses' father reported it to Allstate, requesting coverage for his daughter's injuries.
- A year later, in Kansas, Moses' counsel made a settlement offer to Allstate for the policy limit of $25,000 to resolve her claims against Halstead.
- Allstate rejected the settlement offer in Kansas.
- Chris Halstead never assigned to Shelby Moses any potential claim he had against Allstate for bad faith refusal to settle.
Procedural Posture:
- Shelby Moses filed a tort action against Chris Halstead in a Missouri state court.
- A jury returned a verdict for Moses for $100,000, and judgment was entered against Halstead.
- Allstate paid Moses $25,000, the policy limit, in partial satisfaction of the judgment.
- Moses registered the Missouri judgment in a Kansas state court and requested an Order of Garnishment against Allstate for the unpaid balance.
- Allstate, the garnishee, removed the garnishment action to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The district court denied Allstate's motion for summary judgment, applying Kansas law.
- After a bench trial, the district court reversed its earlier position and held that Missouri law governed the claim.
- The court initially found for Moses but, upon Allstate's motion for reconsideration, granted judgment for Allstate, holding that Missouri law requires an assignment of the bad faith claim, which Moses lacked.
- Moses, the plaintiff, appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
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 Kansas law, which allows a judgment creditor to garnish an insurer for a bad faith refusal to settle without an assignment from the insured, apply to a claim where the insurance contract was made and the settlement negotiations occurred in Kansas, even though the underlying tort occurred in Missouri?
Opinions:
Majority - Seymour, Circuit Judge
Yes. Kansas law applies because the existence of a contractual duty to settle is a matter of substance governed by the law of the place where the contract was made (lex loci contractus), and the fulfillment of that duty is governed by the law of the place of performance; here, both the contract's creation and its relevant performance occurred in Kansas. In a diversity case, federal courts apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state, which for Kansas is the Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws. This framework distinguishes between the substance of a contract, governed by the law of the place of contracting, and the manner of performance, governed by the law of the place of performance. The court predicted the Kansas Supreme Court would classify the existence of a duty to settle in good faith as a matter of substance. Because the insurance policy was issued in Kansas to a Kansas resident, Kansas law governs the existence and nature of Allstate's duties. Furthermore, because the settlement offer and rejection occurred in Kansas, Kansas was the place of performance, reinforcing the application of its law. Under Kansas substantive law, a judgment creditor like Moses may proceed directly against an insurer via garnishment for an excess judgment based on a negligent or bad faith refusal to settle, without obtaining an assignment from the insured tortfeasor.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Kansas's application of the traditional lex loci contractus rule for determining the substantive duties of insurers, even when the underlying tort occurs in another state. It clarifies for insurance litigators that core obligations, like the duty of good faith and fair dealing, are tied to the place of contracting, providing a predictable choice-of-law framework. The ruling also reaffirms the strength of Kansas's garnishment statute as a powerful tool for judgment creditors, allowing them to directly pursue insurers for bad faith without the procedural hurdle of securing an assignment from the tortfeasor, a requirement in other states like Missouri. This strengthens the position of plaintiffs in Kansas and places a clear burden on insurers writing policies in the state to adhere to Kansas's standards for claims handling, regardless of where a covered incident happens.
