American States Insurance v. Chun
American States Insurance v. Chun
Opinion of the Court
Appellant American States Insurance Company seeks direct review of an order of the Clark County Superior Court denying its motion to stay arbitration and its action for declaratory relief against Respondents David and Wendy Chun and Liberty Northwest Insurance Group. We granted review. We affirm.
Questions Presented
The questions presented in this case are (1) whether the Clark County Superior Court erred in dismissing American States’ declaratory judgment action based upon a conclusion that an arbitration award not confirmed under RCW 7.04.150 may not have preclusive effect on subsequent proceedings; and (2) whether the court erred in awarding attorney fees to Respondents David and Wendy Chun.
Statement op Facts
On July 23, 1993, Respondent David Chun was injured in a two-automobile accident.
The Chuns filed a claim against the State Farm policy. The case went to arbitration under terms of that policy. The arbitrators determined the Chuns incurred $23,508.73 in health care expenses, $8,739 in lost wages, and $67,752.27 in past, present and future general damages, for a total of $100,000.
The Chuns then filed claims for UIM benefits under the American States and Liberty Northwest policies and demanded arbitration of both claims.
American States filed this complaint against the Chuns and Liberty Northwest, seeking declaratory judgment that the Chuns are not entitled to UIM benefits under its policy.
The trial court, the Honorable James D. Ladley, determined that the arbitration award against State Farm was not judicially confirmed and thus could not serve as the basis for collateral estoppel.
On February 18, 1994, American States filed notice of appeal, seeking direct review by this court of the Superior Court decision;
Discussion
The decision in this case can be simply reached. Appellant American States sought a stay of arbitration under RCW 7.04.020, which provides that any application under RCW 7.04 shall be "heard in a summary way”
An order to proceed with arbitration is not appeal-able.
Under the facts of this case, the dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. The order merely denies a motion to stay arbitration and attendant declaratory relief. The parties must then pursue arbitration according to the terms of their contract.
Because of the conclusion we reach in this case, we need not resolve the conflict between the decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, in Dougherty v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
Conclusion
We affirm the order of the Clark County Superior Court which dismissed the declaratory judgment action of Appellant American States Insurance Company and awarded attorney fees to Respondents David and Wendy Chun.
Clerk’s Papers, at 4.
Clerk’s Papers, at 5, 25.
Clerk’s Papers, at 18. The document before us is signed by only one of three arbitrators. Yet none of the parties question its validity. Indeed, Appellant American States concedes it does not dispute validity of the document. Clerk’s Papers, at 11.
Clerk’s Papers, at 5. Report of Proceedings (December 10, 1993), at 9-10.
Clerk’s Papers, at 14-16.
Clerk’s Papers, at 87.
Clerk’s Papers, at 5.
Clerk’s Papers, at 6. The record does not include Respondent’s answer to the complaint filed by American States.
Clerk’s Papers, at 7, 20.
Report of Proceedings (December 17, 1993), at 2.
Clerk’s Papers, at 103-04.
Clerk’s Papers, at 104. Report of Proceedings (January 21, 1994), at 11.
Althougb named a respondent in this proceeding, Liberty Northwest Insurance Group did not formally appear before this court.
(Italics ours.)
Munden v. Hazelrigg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 42-44, 711 P.2d 295 (1985). RAP 2.2 (a) (1), (3).
All-Rite Contracting Co. v. Omey, 27 Wn.2d 898, 901, 181 P.2d 636 (1947).
King County v. Boeing Co., 18 Wn. App. 595, 602, 570 P.2d 713 (1977).
North Coast R.R. v. Kraft Co., 63 Wash. 250, 257, 115 P. 97 (1911). Accord Jackson v. Walla Walla, 130 Wash. 96, 101, 226 P. 487 (1924).
58 Wn. App. 843, 795 P.2d 166 (1990).
61 Wn. App. 295, 810 P.2d 67 (1991).
Concurring in Part
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority that the trial court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, the insurer’s declaratory judgment action and its order denying the motion for stay of arbitration are not appealable orders. Consequently, I would dismiss the insurer’s appeal from those orders.
I disagree with the majority’s treatment of the appeal from the award of attorney fees and therefore dissent.
The award of attorney fees, unlike the other orders considered here, is a final judgment and thus appealable. RAP 2.2(a)(1).
The exception to the American rule in awarding attorney fees, which was announced in Olympic S.S. Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 117 Wn.2d 37, 52-53, 811 P.2d 673 (1991), is a very narrow exception. Dayton v. Farmers Ins. Group, 124 Wn.2d 277, 876 P.2d 896 (1994). Where coverage is not an issue and the dispute is over the value of the claim presented under the policy, attorney fees are not authorized. Dayton, 124 Wn.2d at 280.
Here the dispute was similar to that considered in Dayton. It was over the amount of damages suffered, not over coverage. Attorney fees thus were not authorized and I would reverse the award of fees.
Durham, C.J., and Madsen, J., concur with Andersen, J.
Judge James A. Andersen is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Const, art. IV, § 2(a), amended by Const. amend. XXXVI.
The trial judge did not have the benefit of our opinion in Dayton v. Farmers Ins. Group, supra.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- American States Insurance Company, Appellant, v. David and Wendy Chun, Et Al., Respondents
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published