Court Opinion

ID: 9844792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:08:58.871339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:43.156198
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The plaintiff appeals from a ruling of the trial court holding that her claim is barred by the provisions of Section 63-30-15, U.C. A.1953. This section provides that an action must be commenced within one year after the denial of a claim.
On September 30, 1966, plaintiff fell from a bleacher seat while watching a high school football game. She claims tha.t her fall and resulting injuries were caused by reason of the unsafe and defective condition of her bleacher seat. This action was commenced exactly two years after the fall. The defendant moved to dismiss because the complaint showed on its face that the statute of limitations had run. The plain*31tiff filed an affidavit in opposition to motion to dismiss; and the trial judge, treating the matter as a motion for summary-judgment, dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
In her affidavit the plaintiff claims that following the giving of timely notice in writing to the school authorities, she was advised by an adjuster for the insurer of the School District, that the insurance company would pay all her damages as soon as they could he ascertained. She further stated that in January, 1967, she underwent back surgery, and following the operation an adjuster for the insurance company told her that all her medical bills would be taken care of and not to worry, that the insurance company would stand behind her. She further stated that in November of 1967 she called the adjuster’s office and was advised that the company could not do anything until she was released by her doctor. She also stated that she was not released by her doctor, and in September, 1968, she called the adjuster and was then told that her claim was denied.
Based on the facts as stated in her affidavit, she claims that the defendant, Granite School District, is estopped to set up the statute of limitations, and this claim is the only matter before this court.
In this case the plaintiff either knew or was presumed to know that her action would need to be filed within one year following the disallowance of her claim, or in case it was not disallowed, one year from ninety days after the claim had been filed. There was no fiduciary relationship between her and the claims adjuster. She had to know that he was her adversary and that he did not have authority to represent and bind the School District.
Counsel have cited many cases holding that a defendant may be estopped to set up the statute of limitations when by misrepresentation on the part of the defendant the plaintiff has neglected to bring the action timely. This case, however, is not the usual run of cases. It involves an arm of the State as a party defendant, and in that regard the law is as stated in 31 C.J.S. Estoppel § 141, at page 696:
Municipalities and quasi municipalities are not subject to estoppel to the same extent as individuals or private corporations, and, in accordance with the general rule, stated supra § 138, that estop-_ pels against the public are little favored, the principle of estoppel in pais ordinarily is inapplicable to municipalities and quasi municipalities, and should be used sparingly. * * *
See also Tooele City v. Elkington, 100 Utah 485, 116 P.2d 406, where in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Wolfe it is said:
* * * The principle of “holding out” does not apply to a municipality. *32A city may be estopped from asserting a claim because of the action or non-action of its representative body or successive bodies under certain circumstances, but neither that body nor the city is estopped or bound in any way on the theory that it has held out its agent as having authority which he did not have.
The time limitation of one year during which an action must be filed against a municipality is an integral part of the statute which permits one to sue and is not an ordinary statute of limitations. It cannot be waived by an insurance adjuster.1
A case in point is that of Town of Mount Dora v. Green, 117 Fla. 385, 158 So. 131 (1934). There Green brought an action in equity to enjoin the town of Mount Dora from setting up the statute of limitations as a defense to another action at law then pending in which Green was plaintiff. In the law action Green had not filed his complaint within the 12 months as required by the charter of the town. He claimed that the reason he had not filed was because of certain negotiations carried on and because of the representations made by the local agent of the insurer for the town of Mount Dora. The Supreme Court said:
The controlling question presented here is whether or not an agent of a municipality, without being thereunto authorized by a statute, may by express agreement or by conduct waive the right of the municipality to interpose its defense of statutory limitation against the enforcement of a cause of action, or, in other words, whether or not a municipality may be estopped from pleading the statute of limitations by reason of the conduct or express agreement of an agent of limited authority whose action in that connection is not specifically authorized by statute.
^ •(* 'I* ¡(í *1* ^
It is clear to us, however, that no conduct of any person or persons possessing less authority than the governing power of the municipality may by express agreement or by conduct, unless thereunto specifically authorized by statute, waive the duty of the municipality to plead the statute of limitations where the statute is mandatory.
The annotation in 24 A.L.R.2d at page 1415, supplementing one in 130 A.L.R. at page 8, states the law as follows:
The general rule recognized and applied in numerous cases in both the original and the present annotation is that the doctrine of estoppel in pais may be applied to preclude a defendant who has been guilty of fraudulent or inequitable *33conduct from asserting the- statute of limitations. * * *
But, as will be seen by a review of the cases in the original annotation and in § 4 of the present annotation, the general rule above stated is not, according to the majority of the cases, applicable with respect to cases arising under statutes creating a new cause of action and limiting the time for commencing suit thereunder. * * *
The main opinion assumes that the Great American Insurance Company stands ready to pay any judgment which may be rendered against the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff does not have to comply with the provisions of the statute which permit her to sue. An insurance adjuster of the Scott Wetzel Adjusting Company misled the plaintiff and caused her not to file her claim within the time when the statute says she must so file it.
Now, the Great American Insurance Company is not a party to this action and cannot be bound even by stipulation of counsel for the parties to this action. We do not know what defense the insurance company would raise if and when the defendant attempts to recover on its policy. The insurance company may claim that the policy has lapsed or that it was obtained by fraud or that because of the failure of the defendant to cooperate, coverage is avoided. The insurance company may even have become bankrupt, so that no effective covering for the defendant is in existence. All of these possibilities make it essential to have the insurer named as a party defendant if the reasoning of the main opinion is to have any validity.
The court has consistently refused to permit the joinder of an insurance company as a party defendant. Our latest holding to that effect was in the case of Young v. Barney, et al., 20 Utah 2d 108, 433 P.2d 846 (1967). When this court is willing to have the insurance carrier made a party to the action, then I would have no problem in permitting the action to be maintained as against the insurer when its agent acted as plaintiff contends the Scott Wetzel adjuster acted in this case.
Even if the insurance adjuster had entered into a written contract with the plaintiff to the effect that she could bring her suit after the one-year period had elapsed, the School District would not be bound thereby because the adjuster was not an agent of the School District; and even if he were an agent of the District, he had no authority to make such a contract.
See 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver § 39, where it is said:
Unquestionably, a purpose which cannot be accomplished directly because the particular person lacks the power or capacity to do so cannot be accomplished indirectly by an estoppel of that pferson. *34Legal capacity, actually wanting, cannot be supplied by estoppel, nor can a person be estopped in pais when he cannot bind himself by contract. * * *
By refusing to allow this action to be maintained, I do not mean to say that the plaintiff would be precluded from getting redress against the insurance company and its agent in some other proceeding. That matter is not before us.
I think the district court should be affirmed and that each party should bear its own costs.
HENRIOD, J., concurs with the dissenting opinion of ELLETT, J.,

. In this case we need not pass on the question of whether the governing board of the District could waive the provisions of the statute, as that board has not undertaken to do so.