SKAUGE v MOUNTAIN STATES TEL TE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13371 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1977 J O H N A. SKAUGE and LINDA SKAUGE, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH C M A Y a n d MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES O P N COMPANY, D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s , MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, Third-Party P l a i n t i f f , J O H N A. SKAUGE and LINDA SKAUGE, and UNIGARD INSURANCE GROUP, Third-Party Defendants. D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , H o n o r a b l e C h a r l e s Luedke, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellants: C a t e , Lynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d & H u s s , B i l l i n g s , Montana W i l l i a m F i t z g e r a l d a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents : Hooks and S h e r l o c k , Townsend, Montana J e f f r e y S h e r l o c k a r g u e d , Townsend, Montana Hughes, B e n n e t t a n d C a i n , H e l e n a , Montana Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, G a l l a g h e r and T o o l e , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: - z m - March 1 8 , 1977 'y M r . Chief J u s t i c e P a u l G. H a t f i e l d d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. On September 1 0 , 1973 t h e r e n t e d home of John and Linda Skauge i n B i l l i n g s , Montana was d e s t r o y e d by a n e x p l o s i o n and f i r e which consumed a l l of t h e i r p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n s . The Skauges had a f i r e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y w i t h Uniguard I n s u r a n c e Group ( U n i g u a r d ) , which i n s u r e d t h e Skauges' p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t o t h e e x t e n t o f $4,000 p l u s $400 f o r i n c i d e n t a l l i v i n g e x p e n s e s i n case of l o s s . This policy contained t h e following provision: " S u b r o g a t i o n : T h i s Company may r e q u i r e from t h e i n s u r e d a n a s s i g n m e n t o f a l l r i g h t of r e c o v e r y a g a i n s t any p a r t y f o r l o s s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t payment t h e r e f o r e i s made by t h i s Company. " A f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e l o s s exceeded t h e p o l i c y l i m i t s , J o s e p h Tobin, a c t i n g a s a d j u s t e r f o r Uniguard, d e l i v e r e d a d r a f t f o r $4,328.98 t o p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y , t o g e t h e r w i t h a proof of l o s s form t o be s i g n e d by Skauges. Plaintiffs' attorney sent the d r a f t and t h e proof o f l o s s t o t h e Skauges. The Skauges t h e n r e t u r n e d t h e proof o f l o s s t o t h e i r a t t o r n e y w i t h a r e q u e s t t h a t he r e s e r v e s u b r o g a t i o n r i g h t s i n t h e Skauges. The proof of l o s s was s u b s e q u e n t l y r e t u r n e d t o t h e Skauges w i t h t h e l a n g u a g e g r a n t i n g s u b r o g a t i o n t o Uniguard s t r u c k o u t , and i n s e r t e d t h e words: "The r i g h t t o s u e t o r t - f e a s o r s i s r e s e r v e d t o t h e i n s u r e d . " The Skauges s u b s e q u e n t l y s i g n e d t h e proof o f l o s s and c a s h e d t h e draft. The proof o f l o s s was n e v e r d e l i v e r e d t o Uniguard. On F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1974, t h e Skauges f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a l l e g i n g t h a t Mountain B e l l Telephone and T e l e g r a p h Company (Mountain B e l l ) and Montana Dakota U t i l i t i e s Company (MDU) negl i g e n t l y caused t h e e x p l o s i o n and f i r e which d e s t r o y e d t h e i r p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n s and s o u g h t $11,267.32 a s t h e t o t a l amount of t h e i r l o s s . W e n o t e t h a t t h i s a c t i o n was commenced by t h e Skauges t h r o u g h r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l , and a t t h i s s t a g e Uniguard was i n no way i n v o l v e d i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . Mr. Tobin t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l e a r n e d o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n on J u n e 6 , 1974, and t h e r e a f t e r informed Uniguard. Then on September 27, 1974 MDU f i l e d a t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t Skauges and Uniguard, a l l e g i n g U n i g u a r d ' s r i g h t of s u b r o g a t i o n , and r e q u e s t i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o a s c e r t a i n who was e n t i t l e d t o any damages f o r which MDU m i g h t e v e n t u a l l y be h e l d l i a b l e . T h e r e a f t e r , Uniguard f i r s t a p p e a r e d i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n on December 2 4 , 1974 by f i l i n g a motion t o d i s m i s s i n r e s p o n s e t o M D U ' s t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t . The s u b r o g a t i o n i s s u e w a s e v e n t u a l l y s e v e r e d from t h e Skauges' o r i g i n a l t o r t a c t i o n and t r i e d s e p a r a t e l y . The o r i g i n a l t o r t a c t i o n w a s c o n t i n u e d , pending t h e outcome of t h e s u b r o g a t i o n issue. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , made a f i n d i n g of f a c t t h a t J o s e p h Tobin and p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y had n o t come t o a n a c t u a l meeting of t h e minds a s t o t h e r i g h t o f subrogation. Consequently, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded t h a t Uniguard was e n t i t l e d t o be s u b r o g a t e d t o t h e e x t e n t of i t s payment t o Skauges, t h a t s u c h r i g h t was n o t waived by Uniguard, n o r w a s it s u b j e c t t o any l i m i t a t i o n i n amount. Neither party c o n t e s t s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , however t h e Skauges o b j e c t t o t h e above mentioned c o n c l u s i o n of law. The Skauges have r a i s e d t h r e e i s s u e s , and have p l e d them i n t h e alternative: 1) Whether o r n o t Uniguard i s e n t i t l e d t o s u b r o g a t i o n a b s e n t a w r i t t e n a s s i g n m e n t by t h e Skauges? 2) I f s o , i s U n i g u a r d ' s s u b r o g a t i o n l i m i t e d t o t h e p o r t i o n of t h e Skauges' r e c o v e r y from MDU and Mountain B e l l which e x c e e d s t h e sum of t h e Skauges' t o t a l l o s s and t h e i r c o s t s o f r e c o v e r y , i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s ? and 3 ) Did Uniguard waive any r i g h t of s u b r o g a t i o n it may have had by r e m a i n i n g i n a c t i v e i n t h e S k a u g e ' s l a w s u i t ? S u b r o g a t i o n i s a d e v i c e o f e q u i t y which i s d e s i g n e d t o compel t h e u l t i m a t e payment o f a d e b t by t h e one who i n j u s t i c e , e q u i t y and good c o n s c i e n c e should pay i t . Mont. 1 4 6 , 314 P.2d 731. Bower v. Tebbs, 132 A p r o p e r t y i n s u r e r who h a s i n d e m n i f i e d t h e i n s u r e d i s u s u a l l y s u b r o g a t e d t o any r i g h t s t h e i n s u r e d may have a g a i n s t t h e t h i r d p a r t y who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e l o s s . The t h e o r y behind t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s t h a t a b s e n t repayment of t h e i n s u r e r t h e i n s u r e d would be u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d by v i r t u e of rec o v e r y from b o t h t h e i n s u r e r and t h e wrongdoer, o r i n a b s e n c e o f s u c h d o u b l e r e c o v e r y by t h e i n s u r e d , t h e t h i r d p a r t y would go f r e e d e s p i t e h i s l e g a l obligation i n connection with l o s s . Couch on I n s u r a n c e 2d, S u b r o g a t i o n S61.18; v. P e l l e c c h i a , 1 5 N . J . N.Y. Standard A c c . 16 I n s . Co. 162, 1 0 4 A.2d 288; F i d e l i t y & C a s . Co. of v. F i r s t Nat. Bank i n F t . L e e , 397 F.Supp. 587. Subrogation i s c l a s s i f i e d a s l e g a l o r conventional; l e g a l subrogation a r i s e s by o p e r a t i o n of law, upon t h e f a c t o f payment made by t h e i n s u r e r ; whereas c o n v e n t i o n a l s u b r o g a t i o n a r i s e s by t h e c o n t r a c t of t h e parties. 16 Couch on I n s u r a n c e 2d, S u b r o g a t i o n S61.2; Kroeker v . S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s . Co., 105. (Mo.App. 1971) 466 S.W.2d F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p a r t i e s may by agreement waive o r l i m i t subrogation. 464, 94 A. F i r e A s s ' n o f P h i l a d e l p h i a v. S c h e l l e n g e r , 84 N . J . E . 615; Home I n s u r a n c e Co. v. H a r t s h o r n , 128 M i s s . 282, 91 So. 1; Merchants F i r e A s s u r . C o r p o r a t i o n of New York v . H a m i l t o n Co., 76 R.I. 294, 69 A.2d 551; Hardware Mut. I n s . Co. v . Dunwoody, 194 F.2d 666. The Skauges have c i t e d t h e s e l a t t e r f o u r c a s e s and have contended t h a t t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y made U n i g u a r d ' s r i g h t o f s u b r o g a t i o n c o n d i t i o n a l upon a w r i t t e n a s s i g n m e n t from t h e Skauges. However, t h e cases c i t e d by t h e Skauges a r e e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d by a comparison of t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s i n v o l v e d . I n e a c h of t h e f o u r c a s e s c i t e d above t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n i n q u e s t i o n stated: "Subrogation. I f t h i s company s h a l l c l a i m t h a t t h e f i r e w a s c a u s e d by t h e a c t o r n e g l e c t o f any p e r s o n o r c o r p o r a t i o n , t h i s company s h a l l , on payment o f t h e l o s s be s u b r o g a t e d t o t h e e x t e n t of s u c h payment t o a l l r i g h t of r e c o v e r y by t h e i n s u r e d f o r t h e l o s s r e s u l t i n g t h e r e f r o m , and such r i g h t s h a l l be a s s i g n e d t o t h i s company by t h e i n s u r e d on r e c e i v i n g such payment." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e states: " T h i s Company may r e q u i r e from t h e i n s u r e d a n r i g h t of recovery a g a i n s t a n y assignment of p a r t y f o r l o s s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t payment t h e r e f o r e i s made by t h i s Company." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) T h i s p r o v i s i o n c o n t a i n s no c o n d i t i o n a l l a n g u a g e , n o r d o e s it s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r t o "subrogation" a s does t h e p o l i c y language i n t h e other cases. In addition t o t h i s there exists the legal d i s t i n c t i o n between a n " a s s i g n m e n t " and " s u b r o g a t i o n " . i n 16 Couch on I n s u r a n c e 2d, S u b r o g a t i o n , S61.92, As stated supra: "Subrogation i s t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of another person i n t h e p l a c e of t h e c r e d i t o r , s o t h a t t h e p e r s o n s u b s t i t u t e d w i l l succeed t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e c r e d i t o r i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e d e b t o r c l a i m , and i s a n a c t of t h e l a w growing o u t o f t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t of i n s u r a n c e , and t h e n a t u r a l j u s t i c e o r e q u i t i e s a r i s i n g from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i n s u r e r has paid t h e insured, r a t h e r t h a n a r i g h t depending upon t h e c o n t r a c t . On t h e o t h e r hand, a n a s s i g n m e n t o f a r i g h t o r c l a i m i s t h e a c t of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e assignment, dependent upon a c t u a l i n t e n t i o n , and n e c e s s a r i l y contemplating t h e continued e x i s t e n c e of t h e d e b t o r c l a i m , t h e whole o f which i s a s s i g n e d . " S u b r o g a t i o n p r e s u p p o s e s a n a c t u a l payment and s a t i s f a c t i o n o f a d e b t o r c l a i m t o which t h e p a r t y p a y i n g i s s u b r o g a t e d , a l t h o u g h t h e remedy i s k e p t a l i v e i n e q u i t y f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e payor, while t h e assignment n e c e s s a r i l y contemplates continued e x i s t e n c e of t h e d e b t o r claim assigned." A f u r t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n i s found i n Kroeker v . Mutual Automobile I n s . Co., S t a t e Farm s u p r a , p. 110: "When t h e r e i s a n a s s i g n m e n t o f a n e n t i r e c l a i m t h e r e i s a complete divestment of a l l r i g h t s from t h e a s s i g n o r and a v e s t i n g of t h o s e same r i g h t s i n t h e assignee. I n t h e case o f s u b r o g a t i o n , however, o n l y a n e q u i t a b l e r i g h t p a s s e s t o t h e s u b r o g e e and t h e l e g a l t i t l e t o t h e c l a i m i s n e v e r removed from t h e s u b r o g o r , b u t remains w i t h him t h r o u g h o u t . " Therefore, we conclude t h a t an express assignment of t h e c l a i m t o Uniguard was u n n e c e s s a r y , s i n c e l e g a l s u b r o g a t i o n a r o s e from t h e f a c t o f payment, and t h i s w a s n o t waived o r made c o n d i t i o n a l by agreement of t h e p a r t i e s . A s f o r t h e second i s s u e , t h e Skauges c o n t e n d t h a t when t h e payment o f p o l i c y l i m i t s i s l e s s t h a n t h e a c t u a l l o s s , t h e i n s u r e r cannot a s s e r t a r i g h t of subrogation u n t i l t h e insured has f u l l y recovered h i s l o s s , p l u s t h e c o s t s of recovery, including attorney's fees. Uniguard a r g u e s t h a t s u c h a r u l e i s a p p l i c a b l e , i f a t a l l , when t h e i n s u r e r i s s e e k i n g r e i m b u r s e ment from a n i n s u r e d , who h a s r e c o v e r e d h i s l o s s from t h e t o r t f e a s o r , and n o t when t h e i n s u r e r s e e k s t o r e c o v e r from t h e tortfeasor. T h e r e i s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e r u l e r e l i e d upon by t h e Skauges, w i t h some j u r i s d i c t i o n s u p h o l d i n g U n i g u a r d ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r u l e o n l y a p p l i e s when t h e i n s u r e d i s s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e r e c o v e r y from t h e t o r t f e a s o r , w h e r e a s o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s d o n o t make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . An example o f t h e f i r s t form o f t h e r u l e i s found i n U n i t e d S e r v i c e s Automobile A s s o c i a t i o n v . Hills, 172 Neb. 1 2 8 , 109 N.W.2d 1 7 4 , 2 ALR3d 1422, 1428: " ' * * * Where t h e a s s u r e d , a s i n case of p a r t i a l insurance, s u s t a i n s a l o s s , i n excess o f t h e reimbursement o r c o m p e n s a t i o n by t h e u n d e r w r i t e r , he h a s a n undoubted r i g h t t o have it s a t i s f i e d by a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e wrong-doer. But i f , by s u c h a c t i o n , t h e r e comes i n t o h i s h a n d s , a n y sum f o r which, i n e q u i t y and good c o n s c i e n c e , h e o u g h t t o a c c o u n t t o t h e underw r i t e r , reimbursement w i l l , t o t h a t e x t e n t , be compelled i n a n a c t i o n by t h e l a t t e r , b a s e d o n h i s r i g h t i n e q u i t y t o s u b r o g a t i o n . But t h e a s s u r e d w i l l n o t , i n t h e forum o f c o n s c i e n c e , b e r e q u i r e d t o a c c o u n t f o r more t h a n t h e s u r p l u s , which may r e m a i n i n h i s h a n d s , a f t e r s a t i s f y i n g h i s own e x c e s s o f l o s s i n f u l l , and h i s r e a s o n a b l e expenses i n c u r r e d i n i t s recovery; u n l e s s t h e u n d e r w r i t e r s h a l l , on n o t i c e and o p p o r t u n i t y g i v e n , have c o n t r i b u t e d t o , and made common c a u s e w i t h him, i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . ' " S e e a l s o Krause v . S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s . Co., 184 Neb. W. 588, 169 N.W.2d 601; S t . P a u l F i r e P. Rose Supply Co., 19 N.C.App. & Marine I n s . Co. v . 3 0 2 , 198 S.E.2d 482. How- e v e r , o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have n o t l i m i t e d t h i s r u l e t o rec o v e r y by t h e i n s u r e r a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d , a s e v i d e n c e d by 67 N.J.Super. 475, P r o v i d e n c e Washington I n s . Co. v . Hogges,/l71 A.2d 1 2 0 , 124: * * * I n t h e a b s e n c e of e x p r e s s t e r m s i n t h e c o n t r a c t t o t h e c o n t r a r y , he ( i n s u r e d ) must be made o r k e p t whole b e f o r e t h e i n s u r e r may r e c o v e r a n y t h i n g from him o r from a t h i r d p a r t y under i t s r i g h t of s u b r o g a t i o n . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) " Utah a l s o a g r e e s w i t h t h i s view. Lyon v. H a r t f o r d A c c i d e n t and Indemnity Company, 25 Utah28 31(, 480 P.2d 739; Transamerica I n s u r a n c e Company v. Barnes, 29 Utah2d 1 0 1 , 505 P.2d 783. The b a s i c r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s r u l e , i n e i t h e r of t h e two c a t e g o r i e s , i s b e s t s t a t e d i n S t . Paul F i r e W. P. Rose Supply Co., & Marine I n s . Co. v. s u p r a a t 484: " * * * When t h e sum r e c o v e r e d by t h e I n s u r e d from t h e T o r t - f e a s o r i s less t h a n t h e t o t a l l o s s and t h u s e i t h e r t h e I n s u r e d o r t h e I n s u r e r must t o some e x t e n t go u n p a i d , t h e l o s s s h o u l d be b o r n e by t h e i n s u r e r f o r t h a t i s a r i s k t h e i n s u r e d h a s p a i d it t o assume." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Again w e n o t e , t h e d o c t r i n e o f l e g a l s u b r o g a t i o n i s a p p l i e d t o s u b s e r v e t h e ends o f j u s t i c e and t o d o e q u i t y i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Bower v. Tebbs, s u p r a . For t h e s e r e a s o n s w e a d o p t t h e view t h a t when t h e i n s u r e d h a s s u s t a i n e d a l o s s i n e x c e s s of t h e reimbursement by t h e i n s u r e r , t h e i n s u r e d i s e n t i t l e d t o b e made whole f o r h i s e n t i r e l o s s and any c o s t s o f r e c o v e r y , i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , b e f o r e t h e i n s u r e r c a n a s s e r t i t s r i g h t of l e g a l s u b r o g a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e insured o r the t o r t f e a s o r . Examining t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , we f i n d t h i s r u l e s h o u l d be a p p l i e d t o t h e c l a i m of t h e Skauges. Uniguard d i d n o t volun- t a r i l y s e e k t o a s s i s t t h e Skauges i n t h e i r s u i t , a s a l l e g e d by Uniguard. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e r e v e a l s t h a t t h e Skauges f i l e d t h e c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t MDU and Mountain B e l l on F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1974. Mr. Tobin t e s t i f i e d t h a t he knew of t h i s l i t i g a t i o n a s e a r l y a s J u n e 6 , 1974, and t h e r e a f t e r informed Uniguard. However, Uni- guard d i d n o t a p p e a r i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n u n t i l December 2 4 , 1974, and t h i s w a s done i n v o l u n t a r i l y i n r e s p o n s e t o M D U ' s t h i r d p a r t y complaint. A t t h i s s t a g e , d i s c o v e r y and i n v e s t i g a t i o n w a s s u b s t a n t i a l l y completed by t h e Skauges t h r o u g h r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l . Although Uniguard a l l e g e d a t o r a l argument t h a t Skauges w e r e r e l u c t a n t t o a l l o w them t o j o i n i n t h e s u i t , Uniguard made no a t t e m p t t o i n t e r v e n e p u r s u a n t t o Rule 2 4 , M.R.Civ.P. It appears t h a t Uniguard would have c o n t e n t e d l y remained on t h e s i d e l i n e s u n t i l t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s l i t i g a t i o n i f n o t f o r c e d i n t o t h e s u i t by MDU. W e n o t e , a l s o , t h a t i n a p p l y i n g t h i s r u l e t h e Skauges w i l l n o t b e u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d by v i r t u e o f r e c o v e r y from Uniguard and t h e t o r t f e a s o r s , n o r would t h e t o r t f e a s o r s be r e l i e v e d of t h e i r l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n f o r t h e l o s s , i f found l i a b l e i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. S i n c e t h e t h i r d i s s u e of w a i v e r by Uniguard h a s been @res e n t e d i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , it was n o t f u l l y l i t i g a t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. W e have h e l d t h a t t h e Skauges be made whole be- f o r e Uniguard may a s s e r t i t s l e g a l s u b r o g a t i o n and we d e c l i n e t o address t h a t issue. T h i s c a u s e i s r e v e r s e d and remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o enter Chief J u s t i c e W concur: e Justices - 8 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
