Caseflicks

Texas Supreme Court • 1929

G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co.

15 S.W.2d 544 | 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 1303

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case established the Stowers duty: an insurer that controls settlement must exercise ordinary care to protect its insured from a foreseeable excess judgment.

Background

American Indemnity issued Stowers Furniture a liability policy with a $5,000 limit for bodily injury claims arising from its automobiles. The policy gave the insurer the right to defend suits in Stowers’s name, prohibited Stowers from settling or negotiating without the insurer’s written consent, and reserved to the insurer the right to settle claims.

After a Stowers truck was disabled and left unlighted on a Houston street, a car collided with it. A passenger, Mamie Bichon, suffered serious injuries and sued Stowers for $20,000. American Indemnity assumed exclusive control of the defense. Before trial, Bichon offered to settle for $4,000, but the insurer would offer no more than $2,500. A jury ultimately awarded Bichon $12,207, and, after affirmance and added interest and costs, Stowers paid more than $14,000.

Stowers then sued American Indemnity, alleging that the insurer negligently and in bad faith refused a settlement that an ordinarily prudent person would have accepted. The trial court withdrew the case from the jury and rendered judgment for the insurer. The court of civil appeals affirmed, reasoning that the policy required the insurer only to defend faithfully and gave it no duty to settle. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether an insurer that has exclusive control over defense and settlement under a liability policy owes the insured a duty to exercise ordinary care in deciding whether to settle a claim within policy limits.

Holding

Yes. The insurer’s exclusive contractual control carries a duty to exercise the care that an ordinarily prudent person would use in managing its own business, viewed from the insured’s standpoint.

Reasoning

The policy did more than promise indemnity up to $5,000. It gave American Indemnity complete control of the litigation and settlement process while forbidding Stowers from assuming liability, settling, negotiating, or interfering without the insurer’s consent. By taking that exclusive authority, the insurer undertook to act as Stowers’s agent in handling the claim.

The insurer’s power to control the defense did not permit arbitrary decisionmaking. Its contractual authority necessarily carried a corresponding obligation to use ordinary care and prudence in protecting the insured’s interests. Otherwise, the insurer could expose the insured to a judgment far above the policy limit while retaining unilateral control over the decision that created that exposure.

The conflict between the parties’ financial interests strengthened, rather than eliminated, the need for a duty of care. The insurer faced a maximum loss of $5,000, while Stowers bore the risk of any excess judgment. An insurer exercising exclusive control in those circumstances must give the insured’s interests at least equal consideration to its own.

Thus, if an ordinarily prudent person, considering the matter from the insured’s position, would have accepted Bichon’s $4,000 offer, the insurer’s refusal could constitute negligence. Stowers’s pleadings stated such a claim, and the evidence raised a fact question for the jury rather than a question to be resolved by a directed judgment for the insurer.

Issue #2

Whether evidence concerning the severity of Bichon’s injuries, the circumstances of the accident, and the insurer’s alleged settlement practices was admissible on the negligence issue.

Holding

Yes. That evidence was material to whether American Indemnity acted negligently in refusing the settlement offer, provided the insurer knew or reasonably should have known the relevant facts.

Reasoning

The seriousness of Bichon’s injuries and the surrounding facts of the accident bore directly on the risk that Stowers would face a judgment exceeding the $5,000 policy limit. Those facts were therefore relevant to determining whether a prudent insurer would have accepted the $4,000 settlement offer.

The relevant question was not merely what facts existed, but what American Indemnity knew or could have learned through ordinary care. The accident’s circumstances and the extent of Bichon’s injuries could support a finding of negligence only if the insurer had actual knowledge of them or would have acquired that knowledge through a reasonably careful investigation.

Evidence that American Indemnity allegedly followed a rule never to settle for more than one-half of its policy limit was also relevant. If true, such a practice could show that the insurer rejected the offer under an arbitrary policy rather than through a prudent, claim-specific assessment of Stowers’s exposure.