Opinion ID: 487784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Richardson's Claim and the County's Garnishment Claim

Text: 34 As set out above, Richardson sued Forum for failing to pay the judgment against him. In addition, the County, as Richardson's judgment creditor, brought a garnishment proceeding against Forum to obtain the insurance proceeds, claiming that Forum was liable to Richardson for the remainder of the consent judgment that Hinds County held against Richardson. See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 11-35-1 et seq. 35 Richardson, as an elected or appointed official of the County, was an insured under the policy. In addition, the Insuring Clause literally covers Richardson, because a claim was made against him, and he became legally obligated to pay damages. Forum, however, is not liable to Richardson unless it was given proper notice under the policy. 3 In turn, if Forum is not liable to Richardson, then the County's garnishment claim against Forum must fail.
36 The consent judgment established that Richardson became legally obligated to pay damages based on a claim against him. As set out above, the state sued Richardson on July 30, 1982, and he signed the consent judgment on October 18, 1982. It was virtually an entire year later before Richardson gave any notice to Forum of his claim. His attorney first contacted Forum on October 10, 1983. Any notice given after October 18, 1982 could not be as soon as practicable, because Richardson's signing of the consent judgment deprived Forum of any opportunity to participate in and defend the litigation. Richardson's written notice of his own claim on October 10, 1983, obviously was not even close to being timely.
37 There remains the question of whether Hinds County gave adequate notice on behalf of Richardson. The district court found that the County's contacts with CFE and Forum did not constitute timely notice of Richardson's claims. Even if the County could give notice on behalf of Richardson--a matter we do not decide--it did not. 38 We search the record to find evidence that Hinds County undertook to give notice under the policy on behalf of Richardson. There is none. Instead, Hinds County vaguely notified Forum that it may have suffered a loss of its own and that some claim involving its policy would be made. The record reveals the following facts: 39
40 The district court found that CFE had not received notice at the time of the September 14 letter. At trial, Andrew Mattiece, Deputy County Clerk, testified that he learned of the suit against Richardson shortly after it was filed on July 30, 1982 and that he talked generally with Bill Mathison of CFE about the County's tax shortage. Neither Mattiece nor Mathison, however, could recall the details of the conversations, such as when Mattiece told Mathison about the suit against Richardson, and neither could produce evidence of any written correspondence between Hinds County and CFE. Of course, by September 14, Mathison knew enough to send his letter and the Property Loss Notice to Forum. Nevertheless, the County failed to show that it gave written notice of Richardson's claim to CFE. 41
42 Before the October 18 consent judgment, Forum received three documents that mentioned Richardson's misconduct. First, Hinds County's amended application of April 1981 revealed that Mississippi's Audit Department has taken exception to Richardson's under-collection. Second, CFE's September 14 letter stated that a claim is being made under this policy [that] involves Mr. Jake Richardson who ... has been removed from his office [of Tax Collector] due to purported irregularities in the collection of penalties and interest. Third, the Property Loss Notice that CFE sent to Forum in mid-September reiterated the facts that the Governor had removed Richardson from office and that a claim will be made under this policy. 4 43 Forum received Mathison's letter and the Property Loss Notice in September 1982. 5 The County's correspondence referred only to the County's loss and did not mention that a claim (the lawsuit) had been made against Richardson. Moreover, the district court found that Forum was unable to do anything regarding the claim due to the failure of Mattiece, the named designee in the policy, to return Kahn's telephone calls.... Forum satisfied its obligation to pursue the claim, but all efforts were foreclosed by Mattiece. This finding is supported by Kahn's testimony that she tried unsuccessfully to reach Mattiece by phone and by the fact that Kahn wrote Mathison about one month after receiving his September 14 letter. 44 In sum, neither Richardson nor Hinds County gave timely notice to Forum of Richardson's loss. Had Forum known about the suit against Richardson before October 18, 1982, it might have intervened or urged Richardson as part of his policy obligations not to sign a consent judgment. We must affirm the district court's conclusion on this issue as not clearly erroneous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52.