Opinion ID: 2276887
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: reduction of judgment and peabody's cross-claim

Text: [¶ 52] As we noted, County Forest and Peabody settled the claims against Peabody before trial for the sum of $170,000. In its motion to amend the judgment, Green Mountain requested that this sum be applied as a credit on the amount of the judgment owing by it to County Forest. Green Mountain and the insurers argue that the claim against Peabody was the same as the claims against them. The trial court, however, found that the damage awards against the insurers and Green Mountain are not for the same injury as the settlement paid by Peabody. For this reason, the court declined to credit Green Mountain and the insurers with the $170,000 paid by Peabody to County Forest. [¶ 53] Peabody filed a cross-claim against the insurers and Green Mountain alleging that it requested Green Mountain to increase the insurance coverage, that Green Mountain was negligent or breached a contract in failing to procure the increased coverage, and that the insurers, as principals, were liable for Green Mountain's negligence and breach of contract. Peabody further alleged that if it was liable to County Forest, then Green Mountain and the insurers were liable to Peabody for any damages paid by Peabody to County Forest. Green Mountain raised a defense of comparative negligence to the cross-claim. The court found that Peabody had been negligent in failing to inquire about premiums owing for the increased coverage and in failing to pursue an amended declarations page showing the increased coverage. The court found that Peabody was 15% at fault. The court reduced Peabody's damages of $170,000 (the settlement sum) by $50,000, as a just and equitable sum for Peabody's own negligence, and granted judgment for Peabody against Green Mountain and the insurers in the amount of $120,000. The end result of the trial court's judgment is that County Forest receives $170,000 from Peabody; it collects $743,542.05 on the insurance policy (from the insurers primarily and Green Mountain secondarily); it obtains the remainder of the damages from either Green Mountain or the insurers (joint and several liability); and Peabody is owed $120,000 from Green Mountain and the insurers. [¶ 54] In deciding not to reduce the judgment owing by Green Mountain and the insurers by the settlement amount and in granting judgment to Peabody on its cross-claim, the trial court made what appears to be inconsistent and unreconcilable findings. It found that the damages to County Forest caused by Peabody and the damages to County Forest caused by Green Mountain and the insurers were not for the same injury. Nonetheless, it found that Green Mountain and the insurers contributed to the loss incurred by Peabody. Either Peabody's settlement with County Forest was for a separate and distinct injury that it caused County Forest or the settlement was for the same, or part of the same, injury caused by Green Mountain and the insurers. If the former is correct, then Green Mountain and the insurers should not have to contribute to Peabody for the damages caused solely by Peabody. If the latter is true, Green Mountain and the insurers are entitled to have the judgment against them reduced by the settlement amount as required by 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980). [11] Because the trial court's findings on the issue of the reduction of the judgment and the cross-claim appear inconsistent, we remand these two issues to the court. The trial court is in a better position than an appellate court to clarify its findings. It may be able to reconcile the apparent inconsistency and articulate why Green Mountain and the insurers should pay Peabody on its cross-claim as well as pay County Forest the full amount of the judgment with no reduction for the settlement. If it cannot reconcile the apparent inconsistency, it will have to modify the judgment. [¶ 55] We do not anticipate that the trial court will need to hold a further evidentiary hearing. Rather, we anticipate that, on the record already produced, the trial court will clarify the inconsistent findings and, if necessary, modify the judgment accordingly.