Opinion ID: 1789862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the special verdict

Text: The trial court submitted the following special verdict form, pursuant to Rule 49(b), A.R.Civ.P., and the jury returned the answers indicated: Question 1: Was the defendant Insurall Insurance guilty of negligence that proximately caused the plaintiff's damages? A. Yes: X No: ___ Question 2: Is the defendant The Standard Plan, Inc. liable to the plaintiffs on the insurance contract? A. Yes: X No: ___ Question 3: If answer to question No. 2 is `yes', was the defendant The Standard Plan, Inc. guilty of bad faith? A. Yes: X No: ___ Question 4: If the answer to question No. 3 is `yes', what amount of punitive damages, and mental distress, if any, do you assess against the defendant The Standard Plan, Inc.? One half million Dollars, ($500,000.00) Question 5: If the answer to question No. 3 is `yes', please state whether the defendant The Standard Plan, Inc. engaged in a pattern or practice of an intentional wrongful conduct. A. Yes: X No: ___ [7] The record shows that Standard Plan did not object to the content or form of the special verdict. Therefore, Standard Plan has waived any objection it might have had as to the sufficiency of the questions propounded to the jury. Ford v. Canton, 530 So.2d 217, 223 (Ala.1988). However, Standard Plan argues that the jury's answers to the special verdict are inconsistent because it found Insurall negligent and also found that Standard Plan had acted in bad faith. Standard Plan says that [t]he negligence of the defendant Insurall which the jury found in the completion of the application for insurance precludes the initial formation of a contract between The Standard Plan and the plaintiffs because there could be no meeting of the minds. Contracts can not be negligently formed. We disagree with Standard Plan's analysis of the jury's answers to the special verdict in this case. The jury found that Insurall had acted negligently in handling the Tuckers' application for insurance with Standard Plan. As we discussed above, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Insurall was acting as a general agent for Standard Plan and that a valid contract of insurance existed between the Tuckers and Standard Plan, although Insurall acted negligently in completing and forwarding it. See Washington National Ins. Co., 491 So.2d at 872. Therefore, Standard Plan was not entitled to rescind its binder because Insurall negligently handled the Tuckers' application. Graham, 569 So.2d at 355; National Life & Accident Ins. Co., 234 So.2d at 567. Standard Plan's failure to investigate the issue of fault in the July 1, 1987, accident and failure to investigate whether Lehman Tucker had intentionally tried to deceive Standard Plan by not listing that accident in the application was an act separate from Insurall's negligence, and that failure to investigate gave rise to a distinct cause of action for bad faith refusal to pay a claim.