Armstrong v. Employer's Liability Assur. Corp.
Armstrong v. Employer's Liability Assur. Corp.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant sued the appellee company in the circuit court for three thousand five hundred dollars, based upon an indemnity insurance policy for the amount of a judgment rendered against appellant because of the accidental striking and killing of a man by the name of Kelly by appellant’s automobile while driven by a young lady. The sad accident occurred in the city of Brookhaven. At the time of this accident the appellant had an insurance policy with the appellee company. Agreement No. 1 in this policy is as follows:
“To pay any loss by reason of the liability imposed by law upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries, including death at any time resulting therefrom,*578 accidently sustained during the policy period by any person or persons, other than employees engaged in operating or caring for the automobiles covered, as the result of the ownership, maintenance or use of any of the automobiles enumerated and described in item 8 of the Declarations.”
The appellee’s limit of liability for one person injured under this policy was five thousand dollars. 'Conditions C and D of the policy are as follows:
“C. Upon the occurrence of an accident covered by this policy, the assured shall give immediate written notice thereof, with the fullest information obtainable at the time, to the corporation’s home office at Boston, Mass., or to the corporation’s authorized agent. If a claim is made on account of such accident the assured shall give like notice thereof with full particulars. The assured shall at all times render to the corporation all co-operation and assistance in his power.
“D. If thereafter any suit, even if groundless, is brought against the assured to enforce a claim for damages on account of an accident covered by this policy, the assured shall immediately forward to the corporation every summons or other process as soon as the same shall have been served on him, and the corporation will, at its own cost, and subject to the limitations referred to in condition A hereof defend or at its option settle such suit in the name and on behalf of the assured.”
These are the agreements material for a decision of this case.
It is unnecessary to set out in detail the pleadings. The testimony in the case is practically undisputed. Briefly stated, this testimony is as follows: That immediately after the killing of Mr. Kelly, Mr. Armstrong notified the insurance company of the accident, and the insurance company made investigation of the facts. Shortly thereafter suit was filed by the Kelly heirs against Mr. Armstrong and the young, lady for forty thousand dollars. The insurance company was at once notified of this suit, and its
Shortly after the convening of the circuit court at Brook-haven the question of compromise came up betAveen the attorney of the young lady and the attorney of the Kelly representatives, various proposals and counter proposals being suggested. These proposals were communicated to Mr. Armstrong’s attorney in Jackson. This attorney got in touch Avith the attorney of the insurance company at Bay St. Louis, and asked him if the appellee company Avould not increase its offer of compromise to three thousand five hundred dollars; that there Avas a probability of being able to settle the case for this amount. The attorney for the insurance company at once attempted to get in touch with the proper officer of the company to see whether or not the company would increase its offer of settlement.
It is the contention of the appellant in this case, that all of the testimony relating to agreements 6f settlement, the settlement itself, and the amount that the insurance company offered to pay as its part of this settlement was inadmissible, because its effect was to impeach the verity of the judgment of the circuit court of Lincoln county in this case; that the insurance company was actively in defense of this suit, wrote the judgment in the case; consequently is a privy to the judgment and is bound thereby; that this judgment recites a trial by a jury and the rendition of a verdict for three thousand five hundred .dollars in favor of the plaintiffs; that under its policy of insurance (agreement No. 1) the insurance company agrees “to pay any loss by reason of the liability imposed by law upon the. assured for damages on account of personal injuriesand that the satisfied judgment is the best and only evidence of the loss sustained by the assured. The authorities relied upon by the appellant to the effect that this judgment imputes verity, and cannot be attacked or impeached, in this proceeding, except for fraud, are universally recognized in this state. The appellee is not attempting to impeach this judgment in this case. The testimony shows that the appellant did not sustain any loss because of this judgment, because he did not pay out any money by virtue of the rendition of the judgment. The money paid out by him, or the loss sustained by him, was paid out, or incurred, before the rendition of the judgment. Because of the payment of this money before the rendition of the judgment the judgment was voluntarily satisfied by the plaintiffs. The judgment itself is not impeached nor attacked by showing that the loss incurred by the appellant under agreement No. 1 of this policy was incurred before the rendition of the judgment. At the time the appellant paid
There was a peremptory instruction in appellant’s favor for three thousand dollars, together with the costs of the circuit court of Lincoln county, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Armstrong v. Employer's Liability Assur. Corporation, Limited
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. EIvidenob. Evidence of nonpayment of judgment in fact admissible. Where a pending lawsuit is compromised for a certain amount which is paid to the plaintiffs and an order of dismissal taken in the case, which by agreement is set aside and a formal judgment entered reciting a trial by a jury and verdict for a certain sum, which, judgment was voluntarily marked satisfied by plaintiffs, testimony is admissible to show that no loss was incurred and no money actually paid out in satisfaction of this judgment. 2. Evidence. Testimony of nonpayment of satisfaction money held, not to vary court records showing satisfaction of judgment. This testimony does not vary, alter, contradict, or impeach the records of the court, which records show the rendition and satisfaction of the judgment. 3. Evidence. Evidence showing no loss sustained hy assured, and no money paid t>y him, held competent in suit on indemnity policy. Where a party has compromised a suit against him, and paid to the paintiffs the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars in full settlement therefor, and had the suit' dismissed, and subsequently, at .the request of the insurance- company, which has agreed to pay any loss by reason of liability imposed by law upon the assured (the plaintiff) for damages on account of personal injuries, and -upon the request of the insurance company the order of dismissal is set aside and a judgment entered, reciting a trial by jury and a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for this amount, which judgment is marked satisfied by the plaintiffs, under this insurance agreement it is competent for the insurance company to prove that no loss was sustained by the assured, and no money was paid out by him in satisfaction of the judgment, but that the amount was actually paid before the judgment was entered. This testimony in no wise impeaches the records of the court showing the entry and satisfaction of the judgment.