Case Title: Larocque v. State Farm Ins. Co.

Citation: 163 Vt 617, 660 A.2d 286

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAROCQUE_V_STATE_FARM_INS_CO.94-316; 163 Vt 617; 660 A.2d 286

[Filed 21-Mar-1995]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-316

                            FEBRUARY TERM, 1995

Paula W. Larocque and                }
Michael D. Larocque                  }         APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }         Rutland Superior Court
                                     }
State Farm Insurance Company         }
and New Jersey Automobile            }         DOCKET NO. 94-316
Insurance Underwriting Association   }

                     In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

         In 1987, plaintiffs Paula and Michael Larocque were injured in a car
collision with defendants' insured, and pursuant to their obligations under
the insured's automobile insurance policy, defendants assumed the defense of
the subsequent lawsuit.  The parties settled the lawsuit for the policy
limits in 1991, but plaintiffs instituted this action in 1992 alleging that
defendants' failure to settle plaintiffs' claims in an expeditious manner
constituted a breach of defendants' duty to deal with plaintiffs in good
faith, unjustly enriched defendants, and constituted intentional infliction
of emotional distress.  Plaintiffs appeal the Rutland Superior Court's
decision granting defendants' motion for summary judgment.  We affirm. 

         Summary judgment is appropriate when the party against whom judgment
is sought is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences, but
no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.  Toys, Inc. v. F.M. Burlington Co., 155 Vt. 44,
48, 582 A.2d 123, 125 (1990); V.R.C.P. 56(c).  This Court applies the same
standard of review on appeal.  State v. Delaney, 157 Vt. 247, 252, 598 A.2d 138, 141 (1991).  Applying this standard here, we conclude that even if
defendants failed to offer plaintiffs a settlement within a reasonable period
of time, plaintiffs have no actionable claim. 

         Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred, as a matter of
law, in concluding that defendants did not owe plaintiffs a duty to deal with
them in good faith in offering to settle the underlying action.  Plaintiffs
contend that this duty exists both by statute and at common law, and in the
alternative, that defendants voluntarily assumed this duty through their
practices and procedures. 

         Although the Insurance Trade Practices Act, 8 V.S.A.
4721-4726, provides administrative sanctions for unfair and deceptive
acts within the insurance industry, including for unfair claim settlement
practices, 8 V.S.A.  4724(9), the Act does not create a private right of
action.  See Denis Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 159 Vt. 481, 487, 622 A.2d 495,
499 (1993); Wilder v. Aetna Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 140 Vt. 16, 19,