Travelers Insur. Co. v. Godsey
260 Md. 669, 273 A.2d 431 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer is not collaterally estopped from asserting the defense of non-cooperation against a third-party claimant if it discovers, after a judgment against its insured, that the insured and the claimant fraudulently colluded to misrepresent material facts, provided the insurer repudiates liability within a reasonable time after discovering the breach.
Facts:
- Linda Godsey was a passenger in a car driven by Karl Doepel when it was involved in an accident.
- Doepel was insured under a policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company.
- Godsey and Doepel both informed Travelers' investigators and testified in court that the accident was caused by a sudden and unexpected brake failure while Doepel was driving.
- After a jury verdict was returned and a consent judgment was entered, Travelers discovered that this account was false.
- The true facts were that Godsey and Doepel were playing a game called 'chicken,' in which Doepel operated the foot pedals while facing the rear of the car, and Godsey steered from the center console.
- Travelers alleged that Godsey and Doepel colluded to conceal the true facts and invent a story that would ensure Godsey could recover from Doepel's insurance policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Godsey sued Karl Doepel in a state trial court for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
- Travelers Insurance Company defended Doepel under his insurance policy.
- A jury returned a verdict for Godsey in the amount of $28,500.
- The parties subsequently agreed to enter a consent judgment for $16,000, the policy limit.
- Travelers issued drafts to pay the judgment but then stopped payment upon discovering the alleged fraud and collusion.
- Godsey and her co-payees sued Travelers in trial court for dishonoring the drafts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Godsey, ordering Travelers to pay.
- Travelers, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
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 have a valid defense against paying a judgment to a third-party claimant if it discovers, after the judgment was entered, that its insured and the claimant fraudulently colluded to misrepresent the facts of the accident in breach of the policy's cooperation clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Hammond, C. J.
Yes, an insurer has a valid defense against paying a judgment under these circumstances. An insured has a contractual obligation to provide a fair, frank, and truthful disclosure to the insurer. A deliberate and fraudulent collaboration between the insured and the claimant to mislead the insurer is a material breach of this cooperation clause, which can excuse the insurer from its liability to pay. The claimant, as a third-party beneficiary, stands in the shoes of the insured and has no greater rights against the insurer. The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply here because the issue of the insured's contractual breach of the cooperation clause was not, and could not have been, litigated in the initial tort action which only determined the insured's liability to the claimant.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of collateral estoppel in insurance law, establishing that a tort judgment does not preclude an insurer from later raising contract-based defenses like breach of the cooperation clause. It reinforces the principle that a third-party claimant's rights are derivative of the insured's rights under the policy. The decision protects insurers from being bound by judgments procured through the fraudulent collusion of their insured and the claimant, ensuring that the duty of cooperation remains a meaningful and enforceable contractual obligation.
