Case Title: Continental Cas. Co. v. City Realty, Inc.

Citation: 673 So. 2d 399

Docket Number: 1931164

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1995-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
673 So. 2d 399 (1995)
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
v.
CITY REALTY, INC., and Martha Cochran.
1931164.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 28, 1995.
Rehearing Denied October 20, 1995.
L. Graves Stiff III and Joe L. Leak of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for Appellant.
Tom Radney and Delane S. Goggans of Tom Radney & Associates, P.A., Alexander City, for Appellees.
COOK, Justice.
Continental Casualty Company (hereinafter "CNA") appeals from a declaratory judgment holding that it is obligated to pay a $300,000 judgment against City Realty, Inc., and Martha Cochran, one of the owners of City Realty. We affirm.
In City Realty, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 623 So. 2d 1039 (Ala.1993), this Court affirmed a $300,000 judgment against City Realty and Martha Cochran in a fraud action brought by Wayne and Mary Forbus. The Forbuses had alleged in their complaint that Martha Cochran "had engaged in fraudulent behavior in order to obtain [certain property `listed' for sale by her as a real estate agent], and, the Forbuses alleged, to prevent them from purchasing the property." City Realty, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 623 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Ala.1993). The jury returned a $300,000 general verdict against City Realty *400 and Martha Cochran; the jury was not required to state the type of fraud upon which it based its verdict. See City Realty, Inc., for the facts giving rise to the Forbuses' fraud claims.
623 So. 2d  at 1041. Although this Court affirmed the $300,000 judgment against Cochran and City Realty, it reversed the summary judgment in favor of CNA, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the errors and omissions policy issued to City Realty by CNA covered the actions of Martha Cochran. We stated:
Id., at 1046-47.
On remand, the trial court empaneled an advisory jury at the request of CNA, and a trial was had with regard to CNA's obligation, if any, to pay the previous judgment against the defendants. Following the trial, the jury was unable to reach an advisory verdict. The trial court then advised the parties that a decision would be forthcoming without further jury action.
The trial court determined that the errors and omissions policy issued to City Realty did provide coverage for the previous judgment against City Realty and Martha Cochran. The standard of review in this declaratory judgment case is as follows:
Alabama Highway Department v. Stuckey's/DQ of Grand Bay, Inc., 613 So. 2d 333, 335 (Ala.1993). We do not find the judgment of the trial court to be plainly and palpably wrong.
The errors and omissions policy issued to City Realty by CNA read in pertinent part:
R.T. at 73-74. In addition, the policy defines "wrongful act" as follows:
Martha Cochran testified that when the Forbuses made their initial offer of $85,000, which was not passed along to the owner of the property in question, she considered the property sold to another individual for $90,000. She testified that although there was not a formal offer of $90,000 on the property at the time the Forbuses made their initial offer, the prospective purchaser and the owner had shaken hands. When the deal fell through, Cochran testified, she contacted Amanda Scroggins, an agent in her office who had been working with the Forbuses, and told her to get in touch with them about the property and that she would be calling the owner back that evening. She testified:
R.T. at 161. Cochran testified that when she did not hear back from Scroggins by the end of the day, she spoke with the owner's daughter and offered to pay $70,000 for the property. When her oral offer was accepted, she testified, she considered the property sold. That, she says, is what she told Scroggins when Scroggins brought Mrs. Forbus by City Realty to pick up the key to show her the property the next day.
From a review of the record, we conclude that, although the evidence was disputed, there was evidence to support the trial court's finding that Cochran's actions were covered by the language of the errors and omissions policy, i.e., that Martha Cochran did not expect or intend the injury to the Forbuses as a result of her actions. See Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Dyer, 454 So. 2d 921, 925 (Ala.1984), and United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164, 1167 (Ala.1985).
AFFIRMED.
MADDOX, SHORES, KENNEDY, and INGRAM, JJ., concur.