Michael Morat, Individually, and Morat's Insurance Agency, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided January 13, 1997·No. 02A01-9412-CV-00270·Published

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTI ON AT JACKSON FILED Jan. 13, 1997

_______ _________________________ Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk

) M CHAEL M I ORAT, i ndi vi dual l y, ) She l by Count y Ci r c ui t Cou r t a nd M ORAT’ S I NSURANCE AGENCY, ) No. 25650 T. D. I NC. , a Te nne s s e e Cor por a t i on, ) ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s , ) ) v. ) C. A. NO. 02A01- 9412- CV- 002 7 0 ) STATE FARM M UTUAL AUTOM LE ) OBI I NSURANCE COM PANY, ) ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e . ) _ _ ___________________ _____________________________________ _ _ _

Fr om t he Ci r c ui t Cour t of She l by Count y a t M mphi s , e Ho nor abl e W t h Chandl e r , Judge ye

Euge ne C. Gae r i g, M mphi s , Te nne s s e e e At t or ne y f or Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s .

Fr e d P. W l s on, i W LSON, M RAE, I VY, M TYI ER AND STRAI N, M mphi s , Te nne s s e e I c c e a nd Al an St r ai n, M mphi s , Te nne s s e e e At t or ne ys f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e .

OPI NI ON FI LED:

AFFI RM AND REM ED ANDED

FRANKS, J. FARMER, J . : ( Conc ur s ) TOM N, SR. J . : ( Conc u r s ) LI

I n t hi s a c t i on f or ma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on, t he

Tr i a l J udge gr a nt e d t he de f e nda nt s umma r y j udgme nt , a nd

p l a i nt i f f s h a ve a ppe a l e d.

Pl a i nt i f f M c ha e l M a t i s a n i ns ur a nc e a ge nt wi t h i or

t h e M a t I ns ur a nc e Age nc y, I nc . , i n M mphi s . or e The ge ne s i s

o f t hi s di s put e oc c ur r e d i n 1981, whe n pl a i nt i f f s s e nt a

p o l i c y c ha nge r e que s t f or m t o de f e nda nt t o c ha nge t he mot o r

v e hi c l e i ns ur e d by de f e nda nt unde r t he a s s i gne d r i s k pl a n

t h r ough t hi s a ge nc y f or t he i ns ur e d, J . W W t t e n. . hi W t t en hi

wa s i n t he pr oc e s s of pur c ha s i ng a 1981 Ca di l l a c a nd

p l a i nt i f f s , a f t e r e xpl or i ng t he pos s i bi l i t y of i ns ur a nc e

f r om ot he r c ompa ni e s , a gr e e d t o W t t e n’ s r e que s t t o a ppl y hi

t o s ubs t i t ut e t he 1981 Ca di l l a c f or t he mot or ve hi c l e on t h e

e x i s t i ng a s s i gne d r i s k pol i c y. M c ha e l M a t f i l l e d out t he i or

a p pl i c a t i on f or c ha nge , whi c h W t t e n s i gne d. hi The pl a i nt i f f

n o t e d o n t he f or m t ha t i t wa s a r e pl a c e me nt ve hi c l e a nd i n

t h e a ppl i c a t i on i n t he s pa c e f or ?c os t ne w?, t h e pl a i nt i f f

f i l l e d i n $25, 000. 00. I n a box on t he f or m, pl a i nt i f f no t e d

t h a t t he ve hi c l e ha d not be e n a l t e r e d. Upon de f e nda nt ’ s

r e c e i pt of t he a ppl i c a t i on, t he c ha nge wa s pr oc e s s e d a nd t h e

1 9 81 Ca di l l a c be c a me t he i ns ur e d ve hi c l e .

Le s s t ha n t wo mont hs l a t e r t he ve hi c l e bur ne d a n d

a c l a i m wa s ma de t o d e f e nda nt . Upon i nve s t i ga t i on of t he

l o s s , de f e nda nt de t e r mi ne d t ha t t he ve hi c l e ha d be e n

2 s u bs t a nt i a l l y a l t e r e d, whi c h i nc r e a s e d i t s va l ue t o ove r

$ 4 0, 000. 00. De f e nda n t ul t i ma t e l y s e t t l e d wi t h t he l os s

p a ye e f or a n a mount i n e xc e s s of $24, 000. 00 a nd t he n br ou g h t

a n a c t i on a ga i ns t t he a ge nt a nd a ge nc y on t he t he or y t ha t

h a d t he t r ue va l ue of t he ve hi c l e be e n r e pr e s e nt e d,

d e f e nda nt woul d not ha ve i ns ur e d t he ve hi c l e , be c a us e t he

a s s i gne d r i s k pl a n do e s not r e qui r e a n i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny t o

i n s ur e a mot or ve hi c l e f or mor e t ha n $25, 000. 00, a nd i t wa s

d e f e nda nt ’ s pol i c y no t t o i ns ur e ve hi c l e s c os t i ng i n e xc e s s

o f t ha t a mount .

The c a s e a ga i ns t pl a i nt i f f s we nt t o t r i a l wi t h a

r e s ul t i ng j udgme nt i n t he i r f a vor , whe r e upon t he y br ought

t h i s a c t i on f or ma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on.

Nume r ous a nd e xha us t i ve de pos i t i ons we r e t a ke n

a l ong wi t h e xhi bi t s f i l e d a nd de f e nda nt move d f or s umma r y

j u dgme nt , whi c h t he Tr i a l J udge gr a nt e d on t he gr ound t h a t

d e f e nda nt ha d r e a s ona bl y r e l i e d on a dvi c e of c ouns e l . On

t h a t ba s i s , t he Cour t c onc l ude d t he r e wa s ?pr oba bl e c a us e ?

t o f i l e s ui t a ga i ns t pl a i nt i f f s he r e i n.

On a ppe a l , p l a i nt i f f s i ns i s t t he r e a r e ge nui ne

i s s ue s o f ma t e r i a l f a c t ?a s t o l a c k of pr oba bl e c a us e ,

ma l i c e , a nd a dvi c e of c ouns e l ?. W l e t he r e a r e mor e t ha n hi

4 , 000 pa ge s i n t he r e c or d be f or e us , we do not f i nd a ny

g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny ma t e r i a l f a c t a s c ont e mpl a t e d i n

Ru l e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , Rul e 56. For pur pos e s of a

s u mma r y j udgme nt , t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ de pos i t i on i s t o be t a k e n

a s t r ue , a nd M c ha e l M a t t e s t i f i e d i n pe r t i ne nt pa r t : i or

Q. W r e you a dvi s e d by Huf f ma n on Augus t 31, e 1981 of t he va l ue of t he a ut omobi l e ?

3 A. M not a t i on s hows t ha t he ga ve me a c os t o f y t he a ut omobi l e .

Q. W t d i d he t e l l you? ha
A. $49, 900. 00.

. . .

Q. W l l , t h e n you ne xt c a l l e d St a t e Fa r m, i s e t ha t r i ght ?
A. Tha t ’ s c or r e c t .
Q. W di d you c a l l a t St a t e Fa r m? ho

A. I c a l l e d a nd a s ke d f or t he Te nne s s e e As s i g n e d Ri s k Unde r wr i t i ng De pa r t me nt .

Q. Di d yo u t e l l t hi s pe r s on you we r e s pe a ki ng t o t he f i gur e Huf f ma n ha d t ol d you of $49, 900. 00?

A. I di d.
Q. W t e xa c t l y di d you s a y? ha

A. I e xpl a i ne d t o t he ma n t ha t I s poke t o t ha t t hi s ma n i s - M . W t t e n i s pur c ha s i ng t hi s r hi a ut omobi l e , a nd be c a us e of t he va l ue , I ne e de d t o know wha t t o do wi t h t hi s pol i c y , whe t he r t he y woul d s ubs t i t ut e t he a ut omobi l e , or wha t t he y woul d do wi t h i t .

Q. W t we r e you t ol d? ha

A. He e xpl a i ne d t o me t ha t unde r t he i ns ur a bl e i nt e r e s t of t he c a r unde r t he a c t ua l a s f a r a s t he va l ue of t he a ut omobi l e , l e s s a ny c us t om e qui pme nt , t he y woul d pr ot e c t t he c a r f or no mor e t ha n $25, 000. 00.

Q. Ca n you e xpl a i n i t t o me ? Ca n you e xpl a i n t o me wha t you a r e s a yi ng t o me , c a n you e xpl a i n wha t t he y t ol d you t he y woul d i ns ur e i t f or ?

A. The y s a i d t he y woul d onl y i ns ur e i t up t o t h e va l ue of t he a ut omobi l e , l e s s a ny c us t om e qui pme nt f or a l i ke ma ke a nd mode l of a 1 9 8 1 Ca di l l a c Se vi l l e .

Q. W s t h e $25, 000. 00 f i gur e i n t he r e s ome whe r e ? a

4 A. No, s i r . The pol i c y - t he y woul d not i ns ur e a ve hi c l e ove r $25, 000. 00 l e s s a ny c us t om e qui pme nt .

Q. So on Augus t 31 you di d not know t he c os t o f t he c us t om modi f i c a t i ons on t hi s ve hi c l e ?

A. No, si r.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Michael Morat, Individually, and Morat's Insurance Agency, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Michael Morat, Individually, and Morat's Insurance Agency, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Michael Morat, Individually, and Morat's Insurance Agency, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re the Estate of Ives
102 S.E.2d 807 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Rossi v. Rossi
892 S.W.2d 246 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1995)
Kauffman v. AH Robins Company
448 S.W.2d 400 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1969)
Sullivan v. Young
678 S.W.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1984)
Palmer v. Palmer
562 S.W.2d 833 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1977)