Case Title: Willis v. Swain. S.Ct. Opinion, filed 10/26/2006 [pdf], 112 Haw. 184.

Citation: 113 Haw. 246

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
‘+e POR PUBLICATION TN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

== 000 =--

 

SHILO WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

CRAIG SWAIN and FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAII, LTD.
Defendants-Appellees,

    
 
 
 
 

and

DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Defendants.

wo, 25992

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(Civ. No. 01-1-0467-02)

DECEMBER 15, 2006
MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

QPINION OF THE COURT BY LEVINSON, J.
As the prevailing party on appeal to this court in
Willis v. Swain, 112 Hawai'i 184, 145 P.3d 727 (2006)
(hereinafter, “Millis I”], the plaintiff-appellant Shilo Willis
requests fees and costs pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 39 and Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 431:10C-211 (2005).

 

2 WRAP Role 39 provides in relevant part:
(=) Civil costs: to whoa allowed. Except in criminal cases
or as otherwise provided by law, ... - if a judgnent is reversed
* ONtgets shall be taxed against che appell unless
Gtheiwise ordered; if-a judgrent is. - vacated, ., the
Costs shall be eliowed only as ordered by the appeliate

 

(c) Coste defined. Costs in the eppellate courts are
continued...)

aa
0+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER +*+

Willis requests a total of $22,088.95. The defendant-
appellee First Insurance Company of Hawaii, Ltd. (First
Insurance) has filed an objection and Willis has replied.

For the reasons discussed intra in part Ii, we grant

Willis’s request, in part, as set forth fully infra in part IIT.

I. BACKGROUND

The underlying dispute arose out of a traffic accident
in which Willis was a passenger in the defendant Craig Swain’s
(unbeknownst to Willis) uninsured vehicle. Willis I, 112 Hawai'i
at 167 & n.d, 145 P.3d at 730 6 n.4. As an impecunious public
benefits recipient, Willis’s only automobile insurance was a

“certificate policy” through the Joint Underwriting Plan (JUP),?

*..scontinued)
(e) Costs defined. Costs in the appellate courts are
defined as: {1) the cost of the original and one copy of the
reporter's transcripts if necessary for the determination of the
appeals 13) the fee for filing the appeal; (4) the cost of
printing or otherwise producing necessary copies of briefs and
Appendices, provided that copying costs shall not exceed 20¢ per
pages... and (6) any other costs autharized by statute or rule.
(a) Request for Fees and Coste; Objections
(2) Alparty who desires an suerd of attorney's fees and costs
Shall request them by submitting an itemized and verified BLL)
Of fees and costs, together with @ statement of authority for
each category of items and, where sppropriste, copies of
Invoices, Bills, vouchers, and receipts... . A failure to
provide authority for the award of attorney’ fees and costs
Sr necessary expenses will result in denial of thet request.

 

 

 

 

RS § 431:10C-211(a) provides in relevant part:

A person making 2 claim for personal injury protection
benefits may be allowed an svard of « reasonable sum for
attorney's fees, and reasonable costs of suit in an action brought
eee Magainst an Insurer who denies ‘a claim for benefits
Under the policy, unless the court upon judicial proceesing
Setermines shat che claim wes unreasonable, fraudulent, excessive,
or frivolous

A concise clarification of the difference between certificate

19 cole not
fort coverage
oF uninsured,
‘§ 16-23-67 (1999)

  

(a) [(concerning certificate policies under HRS
(continued...)
 

‘10+ YOR PUBLICATION JN MEST’ 8 HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
underwritten by First Insurance. 112 Hawai'i at 185-87, 145 P.3d
at 728-30. This plan did not include uninsured motorist (UM)
coverage, though First Insurance would later argue that it had
offered such benefits to Willis. See 112 Hawai'i at 187-88, 145
P.3d at 730-31. Accordingly, Willis lacked insurance that would
have covered her injuries resulting from the subject accident:
therefore, she filed an “assigned claim,” see supra note 2,
(0c-408 (Supp. 1998), which was also

  

pursuant to HRS § 43:
assigned to First Insurance. See 112 Hawai'l at 187 6 n.6, 145
P.3d at 730 6 n.6, First Insurance indicated that it would not
provide her with benefits pursuant to her assigned claim because,
First Insurance maintained, it had “offered” her an “applicable”
alternative to her assigned claim, in the form of UM coverage
that she, now regrettably, declined. 112 Hawai'i at 187-88, 145
P.3d at 730-31. Accordingly, Willis filed the underlying suit in
the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Eden
Elizabeth Hifo presiding. 112 Hawai'i at 187, 145 P.3d at 730.
‘The circuit court avarded summary judgment in favor of First
Insurance and against Willis. 112 Hawai'i at 168, 145 P.3d at
731. Willis appealed. (The cizcuit court's disposition of
Willis's and First Insurance's direct and cross-claims against
Swain, 112 Hawai'i at 188 6 n.8, 145 P.3d at 731 € n.8, were not

challenged on appeal.)

( saconténued)
§G1:20E-407}) The (JUP) is intended to provide actor vehicle
Engurance and optionsi additional insurance in a convenient and
expeditious sanner for... persons who otherwise are in good
faith entitled to, bot Gnabie to obtain, moter venicle insurance
ret through ordinary methods

(b) [concerning assigned Claims under HRS § 431:10C-408)]
Another part of the JUP consists of the assignment thereto of
clains of victims for whom no policy {8 epplicable, such as the
hit-and-run victim who fs not covered by a motor vehicle insurance
policy.

  
 

+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAKAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER #+*

In our October 26, 2006 published opinion, we reasoned
that First Insurance had, at most, presented to Willis “an
invitation to initiate negotiation, not an offer” of UM coverage.
212 Hawai"i at 190 & n.11, 145 P.3d at 733 @ n.11. We concluded
that,

Fizet insurance having made no offer of UM coverage in
the first place, g fortiori, we cannot say that First

Insurance has desonstrated an “applicable” ang

“Iaentifi[able]" alternative to Willie's assigned claim. It

follows inexorably that First Insurance was not "entitled £0

Judgnent 25 matter of law".

212 Hawai'i at 190, 145 P.3d at 733.

Ultimately, we granted Willis's desired relief by
vacating] the circuit court's . . . judgment insofar as it
Aismissed Willis’s action against First Insurance and remand[ing]
for further proceedings consistent with [this court’s] opinion.”
See 112 Hawai'i at 191, 145 P.3¢ at 734. On November 20, 2006,

Willis filed the present request.

TI. DISCUSSION
A. Introduction
In her bill of fees and costs, Willis requests
reimbursement for attorney’s fees of $21,449.87 and for the
following costs: (1) transcripts ($143.08); (2) filing fees
($225.00); and (3) “Printing/copying of briefs/appendices”
(8271.00).
B. Fees.
1, The parties’ arguments
Willis requests reimbursement for the seventy-eight
hours expended on appeal by her attorney, at a rate of $275.00
per hour. First Insurance objects:

(tihere is no statutory authority to support (WiLiLa]’=
request for attorney's fees

inks 's"431:100-211 (0), gee supra note 1,1 provick
support.» . because [Willie] 1s not “lal person maki

     

4
 

[FOR PUBLECATION 11 WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *+*
claim for personal injury protection ((PEP)] benefits (.]"
fier} clash. . de"... for assigned claims cove
1 in fact) as & Lecipient of public assistance

berefiis, [wiliis) is expressly excluded from receiving PIP

Renefits, It de also s matter of record... that (her)

medical expense were paid for by the State of

Hawai l']i Department! of Hunan Service

SFiwns § 431:10-242 (2005) ("Where an insurer has
contested its liability under # policy and is ordered by the
gy, the polieyholser

‘etorney's fer

  

     

 

    

"

indo’ provides no support.
Twiiiia}"s request for payment of benefits by First

Ingurance is not nade uncer any “policy.” . =. BY
definition, a claimant ander the Assigned Clains Coverage
Progran is/a persca for whom “(n)o ‘insurance benefits
Under moter vehicle insurance policies are

spplicablel.1"

 

Wi11is counters that “this Court has specifically
regarded and treated a(n} . . . assigned claim as a ‘policy(.’]”
(citing Washington v, Fireman's Fund Ins, Cos., 68 Haw. 192, 708
P.2d 129 (1985).)

2. Analysis

We agree with First Insurance that Willis’s asserted
basis for fees, HRS § 431:10C-211(a), see supra note 1, which
applies where an insurer has “denie(d) . . . a claim. . . under
[a] policy” (emphasis added), is unavailing. Assigned claims are
creatures of statute and do not arise out of a contractual
relationship. On the other hand, Black’s Law Dictionary defines

a “policy” in the relevant sense as “[a] document containing a

contract of insurance.” Black's Law Dictionary 1196 (8th ed.
2004) (emphases added); accord United Benefit Life Ins. Co. v

McCrory, 414 F.2d 928, 932-33 (ath Cir. 1969); S.E, Colo
Homeless Ctr. v. West, 843 P.2d 117, 118 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992);

Maurer vy, Int'l Re-Ins. Corp., 86 A.2d 360, 365 (Del. 1952);
ns Int’) Re-Ine. Corp,, 74 A.2d 822, 360 (Del. 1950);
Fontenot v, Marquette Cas. Co., 235 So. 2d 631, 637 (La. Ct. App.

1970); Ine Casey, 540 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995);
Floars vy. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 56 S.£. 915, 916 (N.C. 1907

 
Banfield v. Allstate Ins. Co., 880 A.2d 373, 376 (N.H. 2005);
Hunt v. Nei. Fire Underwriters’ Ass’n, 38 A. 145, 147 (NAH.
1895); see also Thiene v. Union Labor Life Ins, Co., 138 N.E.2¢
857, 860 (I11. Ct. App. 1956); Francis v. Tex. & Pac. Ry.
Emplovees Hosp. Ass'n, 148 So. 2d 118, 120 (La. Ct. App. 1963)
Hurd v. Me. Mut, Fire Ins. Co., 27 A.2d 918, 922 (Me. 1942);
Anderson v. Nett, Bel) Tel. Cou, 443 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Minn. ct.
App. 1989); Delcampo v. N.J. Auto, Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n,
630 A.26 415, 421-22 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1993) (quoting
Meier v. Nad. Life Ins. Cou, 480 A.2d 919, 923 (WJ. Super. ct.
App. Div. 1984)); Modisette v, Found, Reserve Ins, Co., 427 P.24
21, 28 (N.M. 1967); Beramann v. Hutton, 101 P.3d 353, 358 (Or.
2004); Ellis v. RI, Pub, Transit Auth., 586 A.2d 1055, 1058
(R.1. 1991).

 

Furthermore, whereas the legislature enunciated that a

 

certificate policy “shall be deemed a policy for the purposes of
[the Insurance Code, HRS ch. 431],” the legislature did not
similarly categorize assigned claims. Compare HRS
§ 431:10C-407(b) (2) (concerning certificate policies); Unif.
Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act § 19(b), 14 U-L.A. 82
(2005 & Supp. 2006) (providing that an assignee insurer “has

- obligations as if [it] had issued a policy of basic
reparation insurance”); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-3116(d) (Westlaw
2006); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 34N (Westlaw 2006); Minn.
Stat. Ann, § 658.63.2 (Westlaw 2006); Smith vs Earp, 449 F. Supp.
503, 507 (W.D. Ky. 1978) (mem. op.) (where insurer paid
plaintiffs’ assigned claim and opted not to intervene as subrogee
yet obtained reimbursement out of plaintiffs’ monetary judgment
pursuant to agreement between insurer and plaintiffs, holding
insurer responsible for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees pursuant to
 

‘10+ POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ 8 HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

shas.

 

state statute that provided that “assign
obligations as if [it] had issued a policy of basic reparation
insurance” (emphasis added)) (construing Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 304.39-170(2)), with HRS § 43:

 

oc-408 (concerning assigned

claims). “Expressio unius est exclusic alterius[ -- ]the express
mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another . . . .”

 

See, eas, State vs Harada, 98 Hawai"l 18, 42, 41 P.3d 174, 198
(2002) (internal quotation signals omitted).

Moreover, Willie’s citation to Hashington is
inapposite. In that case, the plaintiffs had no-cost no-fault
insurance policies, pursuant to HRS § 294-24(b) (2) (Supp. 1984),
ee 68 Haw, 194-95, 708 P.2d 131-32, which was the predecessor to
the current HRS § 431:10C-410(3) (A) (waiving premiums for public

 

assistance recipients) -- in other words, certificate policies.
Nowhere is the concept of an assigned claim mentioned, nor was
the meaning of “policy” in dispute.

Finally, one might argue (Willis does not) that fees
are simply a component of the “full [PIP] benefits” guaranteed to
assigned claimants by HRS § 431:10C-408(c) (1), but HRS
§ 431:10C-304(5) provides that “{no part of [PIP] benefits paid
shall be applied in any manner as attorney’s fees” and that,
here fees are authorized, they are “in addition to the [PIP]
benefits due” (emphasis added); in other words, the statutory
language inplies that the legislature considers fees a separate
species from PIP benefits.

We hold that the assigned claim coverage to which this
court deemed Willis entitled does not constitute a “policy” for
purposes of HRS § 431:10C-211(a). Consequently, we find, as
relates to the present matter, no legislative aim to rebut the

American rule whereby litigants pay their own legal expenses of
 

+94 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S WAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *#*

Litigation, see generally Taomae v, Lingle, 110 Hawai'i 327, 331,
132 P.3d 1238, 1242 (2006).
c. Costs
HRS § 607-9 (1993) (“AL1 actual disbursements .
sworn to by an attorney or a party, and deemed reasonable by the
court, may be allowed in taxation of costs.”) and HRAP Rule 39,
see supra note 1, permit this court to tax Willis’s costs against
First Insurance, her only substantive adversary on appeal, see
Willis 1, 112 Hawai'i at 185, 188 n.8, 145 P.3d at 728, 731 n.8.
First Insurance does not object to Willis’s averred
costs. Accordingly, we grant the total amount of costs

requested.

IIT. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing analysis, we deny Willis’s
request with respect to attorney's fees and grant it, in part,
with respect to costs.’ First Insurance is ordered to pay Willis
a total of $639.00.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 15, 2006.

on the request: Gor

Fernando L. Cosio,

for the plaintiff-appellant MevaBbrnenn

Shilo Willis

Bradford ¥.x. siiss Dewi ON aameyare
lyons, Brandt, Cook s iar

Hiranaten for defendant-
appellee First Insurance
Company of Hawaii, Ltd.,

on the objection
enc necay th,

9 ills appears to have either committed a minor addition
arrive at her “Totel Costs Requested” (eight cents in First Insurance's favor)
or simply rounded off the grand total from 5639-08 to $639.00. For the sake
of fairness, we reach the sane result by ignoring the decinal portion of the
transcript charge: