Court Opinion

ID: 9532758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:24:35.373614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:50.157582
License: Public Domain

HAWTHORNE, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I am not in accord with the holding of the majority that the defendant, Calvert Fire Insurance Company, is subject to the penalty and attorney’s fees imposed by LSA-R.S. 22:658.
The truck in the instant case was destroyed by fire on April 25, 1951. Proof of loss was received by, and demand made on, the defendant, Calvert Fire Insurance Company, on July 9, 1951. At the time of loss the truck was insured also by a policy issued by Commercial Casualty Insurance Company and Milwaukee Mechanics’ Insurance Company, and it was.agreed by stipulation that at the time of the loss of the truck this other insurance policy was in full force and effect. On July 27, 1951, approximately 18 days after receipt of proof of loss, defendant in the instant case offered to settle with plaintiff under the clause of its policy which related to “Other Insurance” and which provided for a pro-ration of the amount of loss in the event there was other insurance. Plaintiff, however, refused to consider a settlement on such a basis and persisted in his demand for payment by the defendant of the full amount of the loss. Moreover, on August 21, defendant informed the plaintiff by letter that it was ready, willing, and able to adjust a settlement of the loss under the provision of the “Other Insurance” clause. No such settlement was made, and the present suit followed.
The majority opinion in the instant case has ordered the defendant to do exactly what it offered to do and what the plaintiff refused to permit it to do — that is, to pay its pro rata share of the loss under the “Other Insurance” provision of the policy —, and notwithstanding this fact has assessed penalties and attorney’s fees against the defendant. The defendant was prevented from prorating the loss by the refusal of the insured, the plaintiff, to accept the amount due under such proration. The court now says that the position which the defendant assumed was correct, yet it orders the defendant to pay the penalties and attorney’s fees as provided in the statute. Under these facts and circumstances I do not see how defendant’s refusal or failure to pay the full amount claimed can be deemed “arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause”.