Title: Hickory v. Morlang

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Hickory v. Morlang (2004-212); 178 Vt. 604; 878 A.2d 318

2005 VT 73

[Filed 06-Jul-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 73

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-212

                              APRIL TERM, 2005

  Jay K. Hickory and Mona B. Hickory	}	 APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
       v.	                        }	Rutland Superior Court
                                        }	
  Merton Morlang and Eleanor Morlang,	}
  Intervenor	                        }	DOCKET NO. 263-4-01 Rdcv

                                                Trial Judge: Richard W. Norton

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Eleanor Morlang appeals two superior court orders: the first
  denying her motion to amend her intervenor complaint to allege negligence
  on the part of Merton Morlang; and the second denying her motion to
  preclude the dismissal of Merton Morlang as a party following the entry of
  a settlement agreement.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  This case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred
  on December 11, 1999 in Bridgewater, Vermont between vehicles operated by
  Jay Hickory and Merton Morlang.  Merton Morlang and his wife, the
  appellant, are New York residents who were traveling through Vermont when
  the accident occurred.  The occupants of the Hickory vehicle sustained
  injuries and property damage, and appellant was badly injured.  The
  Hickorys subsequently brought suit against Mr. Morlang alleging negligence. 
  Unfortunately for appellant, New York law then in effect-which governed the
  Morlang's insurance contract-did not permit her to recover from her
  husband's insurance company if she sued him and proved his negligence in
  court.  N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420(g) (2000). 

       ¶  3.  Appellant attempted to circumvent this problem by intervening
  in the case as a third-party plaintiff against the Hickorys.  She assumed
  that, in defending against her claims, the Hickorys would work to prove her
  husband's negligence, and the jury would apportion responsibility between
  the Hickorys and Mr. Morlang.  Appellant hoped to then take the judgement
  to her husband's insurer in an effort to recover his share of the damage
  liability.

       ¶  4.  The Hickorys settled their claims against Mr. Morlang a week
  before the case went to trial, however, and Jay Hickory moved the superior
  court to dismiss Mr. Morlang from the case.  Appellant objected to the
  dismissal, and also moved to amend her complaint to add a claim for
  negligence against her husband.  The court denied appellant's motion to
  amend as untimely, and then dismissed Mr. Morlang because no claims
  remained pending against him.  This appeal followed.
   
       ¶  5.  While we have instructed the trial courts to be liberal in
  allowing a party to amend its pleadings, we will reverse a court's decision
  to deny such a motion only where there is an abuse of discretion. 
  Lillicrap v. Martin, 156 Vt. 165, 170, 591 A.2d 41, 44 (1991).   In
  determining whether to allow a party to amend its complaint, the trial
  court should consider four factors: "(1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3)
  futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party."  Perkins
  v. Windsor Hosp. Corp., 142 Vt. 305, 313,