Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
854 P.2d 1134 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may consider extrinsic evidence to interpret the meaning of contract language to ascertain the parties' intent, even if the language appears unambiguous on its face. Such evidence is admissible so long as the offered interpretation is reasonably susceptible to the contract's language and does not vary or contradict it.
Facts:
- A three-vehicle accident occurred involving Bobby Sid Taylor, Anne Ring, and Douglas Wistrom, who was uninsured.
- Taylor was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
- In subsequent litigation initiated by Ring against Taylor, a jury returned a verdict against Taylor for approximately $2.5 million in excess of his State Farm policy limits.
- Following the verdict, Taylor's personal attorney, Norman Bruce Randall, believed Taylor had a claim against State Farm under his uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.
- On August 4, 1981, in exchange for a $15,000 payment from State Farm, Taylor signed a release agreement drafted by Randall.
- The agreement released State Farm from "all contractual rights, claims, and causes of action" that Taylor had or may have against the company in connection with the accident and all subsequent matters.
- The basis for Taylor's later bad faith claim—State Farm's alleged failure to settle within policy limits—had already occurred before the release was signed.
Procedural Posture:
- Anne Ring and James Rivers sued Bobby Sid Taylor in Arizona state trial court, obtaining verdicts of approximately $2.5 million in excess of Taylor's policy limits.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments against Taylor.
- Taylor subsequently sued his insurer, State Farm, in state trial court for bad faith failure to settle.
- State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing a release signed by Taylor barred the claim; Taylor filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the same issue.
- The trial court denied both motions, finding the release ambiguous and allowing parol evidence to be presented to the jury.
- The jury found in favor of Taylor, awarding him $2.1 million in compensatory damages.
- State Farm (appellant) appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the release was unambiguous and barred Taylor's claim as a matter of law.
- Taylor (petitioner) petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review.
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 the parol evidence rule prohibit a court from considering extrinsic evidence to interpret a contract's meaning unless the court first makes a preliminary finding that the contract is ambiguous on its face?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Chief Justice.
No. A court is not prohibited from considering extrinsic evidence to interpret a contract's terms, even without a preliminary finding of ambiguity. The court formally adopts the Corbin view of contract interpretation, which holds that the primary goal is to ascertain and effectuate the parties' intent. A judge should first consider all proffered evidence to determine if the contract language is 'reasonably susceptible' to the interpretation asserted by its proponent. If it is, the evidence is admissible to aid in interpretation, so long as it does not vary or contradict the agreement's terms. Here, the term 'contractual rights' was reasonably susceptible to Taylor's interpretation that it did not release his tort-based bad faith claim, especially since the legal nature of a bad faith claim was unsettled at the time. The surrounding circumstances—including the potential multi-million dollar value of the bad faith claim versus the $15,000 payment and the narrow, specific language used in the release—supported Taylor's interpretation, making it a question of fact for the jury to decide the parties' true intent.
Concurring - Corcoran, Justice.
Yes, I concur with the majority's conclusion, but without enthusiasm. The rule adopted by the court is amorphous and lacks a bright-line standard for contract interpretation. This approach may lead to increased litigation and uncertainty, as it empowers the court to make final determinations based on which parol evidence it finds most persuasive, potentially making this court the ultimate arbiter in every major contract dispute.
Analysis:
This case solidifies Arizona's rejection of the traditional, restrictive 'plain meaning' rule for contract interpretation in favor of the more modern Corbin view. The decision lowers the threshold for admitting extrinsic evidence, shifting the initial inquiry from whether a contract is ambiguous to whether the contract's language is 'reasonably susceptible' to a proffered meaning. This makes it more difficult to resolve contract disputes on summary judgment, as determining the parties' intent often becomes a question of fact for the jury. The ruling prioritizes the actual intent of the contracting parties over a judge's literalist interpretation of the text, thereby impacting how contracts are drafted and litigated.
