Short v. Dairyland Insurance Co.
334 N.W.2d 384, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1164 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A liability insurer acts in bad faith and is liable for a judgment exceeding policy limits if it refuses to settle a claim within those limits when liability is clear and potential damages are highly likely to exceed the policy limits. The insurer must give equal consideration to the insured's financial exposure as to its own and cannot prioritize its own financial interests by attempting to secure a discount when a reasonable settlement offer is made.
Facts:
- Gerald D. Kearney, insured by Dairyland Insurance Company (Dairyland) with a liability limit of $25,000, was involved in a two-car collision that killed Donald Morin.
- Morin was 40 years old, earned approximately $30,000 annually, and was survived by a wife and five minor children.
- Initial reports indicated Kearney had crossed the centerline and was operating his vehicle with a blood/alcohol concentration over the legal limit.
- Dairyland's claims examiner was aware that Kearney's liability was clear and was given authority to settle the case for the full policy limit.
- An attorney for Morin's widow, Norman Perl, offered to settle the claim for the full policy limit of $25,000.
- Dairyland's examiner, instead of accepting the offer, requested a discount from the policy limit and raised the issue of a potential subrogation claim by another insurer to pressure Perl.
- Dairyland never informed its insured, Kearney, of the settlement offer made by Morin's attorney.
- Over a year later, Morin's attorneys renewed the $25,000 settlement offer, which Dairyland did not respond to before it expired.
Procedural Posture:
- After Dairyland refused to settle for the policy limit, attorneys for Donald Morin's widow sued Gerald D. Kearney for wrongful death in state trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict against Kearney for $745,000, which far exceeded his $25,000 policy limit.
- As a result of the excess judgment, Kearney filed for bankruptcy.
- Brian P. Short, as Kearney's bankruptcy trustee, then sued Dairyland Insurance Company in Hennepin County District Court (a trial court), alleging bad faith refusal to settle.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Short for the excess judgment amount of $720,000 plus interest.
- Dairyland (appellant) appealed the summary judgment order to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
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 insurer act in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim for the policy limits when its insured's liability is clear and a potential verdict is highly likely to exceed the policy limits, in an attempt to secure a discount or leverage a potential subrogation issue?
Opinions:
Majority - Yetka, Justice (adopting the opinion of Lebedoff, Judge)
Yes. An insurer acts in bad faith by refusing a policy-limit settlement offer when liability is clear and a potential verdict will likely far exceed the policy limits. The court found Dairyland acted in bad faith on two grounds. First, Dairyland had no good faith belief that its insured, Kearney, was not liable, as all evidence pointed to his clear fault. Second, Dairyland could not have had a good faith belief that a jury award would be less than the $25,000 policy limit, given that the victim was a 40-year-old breadwinner with a wife and five children. The court reasoned that an insurer's duty of good faith requires it to view the situation as if there were no policy limits and give equal consideration to the insured's financial exposure. Dairyland's attempts to obtain a discount and use a subrogation issue as leverage were a dereliction of its fiduciary duty to Kearney. Furthermore, Dairyland's failure to inform Kearney of the settlement offers was additional evidence of its bad faith.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fiduciary duty an insurer owes to its insured during settlement negotiations, establishing that this duty is paramount to the insurer's own financial interests. The case serves as a significant precedent in bad faith law, clarifying that an insurer cannot "gamble" with its insured's financial well-being by rejecting a reasonable policy-limit settlement in a clear liability case to save a small amount of money. The ruling deters insurers from leveraging their control over litigation to coerce claimants into accepting less than policy limits when a large excess verdict is foreseeable, thereby strengthening protections for policyholders.
