Vincent v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.

Vincent v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.

Opinion

 [*108]  [**944]   TROUT, Chief Justice

This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting the defendant-respondent Safeco Insurance Company of America's ("Safeco") motion for summary judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 3, 1993, Betty Vincent was injured in a car accident through no fault of her own. She allegedly suffered over $ 100,000 in damages as a result of the accident. On December 14, 1995, Betty and her husband Larry ("Vincents") settled with the at-fault driver for that driver's liability policy limit of $ 50,000.

Prior to the accident, the Vincents had obtained a Safeco insurance policy through the Stonebraker-McQuary Insurance Agency ("Stonebraker"). The Vincents' policy [***2]  provided $ 100,000/$ 300,000 liability, $ 5000 medical, and $ 25,000/$ 50,000 uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. "Underinsured motor vehicle" was defined by the policy as a vehicle whose liability coverage was less than the victim's underinsurance coverage. Safeco paid on the $ 5,000 medical coverage, but because the at-fault driver's liability insurance was greater than Vincent's underinsurance coverage, it did not pay on the underinsurance policy.

The Vincents filed suit on February 12, 1996. The Amended Complaint filed May 29, 1998, alleged: Count I, Stonebraker was negligent in failing to advise the Vincents they needed greater coverage; Count II, Stonebraker's negligence was imputed to Safeco; Count III, negligent underwriting by Safeco; Count IV, negligence supervision and training of Stonebraker staff by Safeco; Count V, negligent misrepresentation of the definition of underinsured motor vehicle by Safeco; Count VI, the underinsured motor vehicle coverage was void as against public policy.

Both Stonebraker and Safeco filed motions for summary judgment. On December 29, 1998, the district judge denied Stonebraker's summary judgment motion but granted Safeco's motion as [***3]  to Counts III, IV, V, and VI. The Vincents then settled with Stonebraker on Count I. On December 3, 1999, upon a stipulation of the parties the district judge filed an order dismissing with prejudice Counts I and II against all defendants. The order also dismissed with prejudice Counts III, IV, V, and VI as against Stonebraker.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.