Court Opinion

ID: 9579935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:00:01.65087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:54.024964
License: Public Domain

Neely, Justice,

concurring'.

I concur specifically for the purpose of pointing out that the salutary rule announced today with regard to the measure of damages for injury to real property probably also applies to damages for injury to personal property.
The new rule, if such it be, seems to me an act of divine justice, in that people with property damage to their personal property, particularly automobiles may now be able to sue also for inconvenience and annoyance. These, obviously, are two types of damage which can be mitigated by quick settlement. Everyone knows that it is difficult to go to court for less than a thousand dollars, yet accidents involving far less damage than that often deprive necessitous families of their transportation for months. Some of the bandits in the insurance business, a minority of companies I am happy to point *406out, predicate their company policy on the proposition that a person cannot sue them, realistically, for property damage. They offer settlements accordingly.
Insurance is different from any other business. If a man goes into a butcher shop, asks for two pounds of ground meat, and tenders $2.89 in payment, he will expect his meat to be forthcoming from the grinder. Imagine the scene were the customer to ask for his meat, and be answered that the butcher has no intention to deliver the same.“Where is my meat?” the customer would reply, possibly in other than dulcet tones. “I won’t give you any meat,” replies the butcher firmly. “Then give me back my $2.89 and I shall go elsewhere,” says the customer. “I won’t give you the $2.89 either,” replies the butcher, “for you must bring a law suit to get it from me.” Sock! Pow! Blam! And much property damage of a different sort.
Yet such a colloquy proceeds with regularity in the area of insurance. The case of fire insurance leaps instantly to mind when companies frequently deny liability under contracts with their own insureds. Furthermore, if a man’s car is damaged negligently by another party, the tort-feasor’s insurance carrier, recognizing full well the liability, may well decline to pay forthwith, relying instead upon its ability to wear the injured victim down with legal expenses and the cost of stamps for the exchange of meaningless correspondence.
And now steps into this absurd process our new rule on annoyance and inconvenience. I for one would not reverse a jury verdict for annoyance and inconvenience unless it were monstrous, and such that all mankind must exclaim against it at first blush. Addair v. Majestic Petroleum Co., Inc., _ W. Va. _, 232 S.E.2d 821 (1977). Suddenly the incentive to settle property damage claims increases dramatically, particularly as one can greatly mitigate annoyance and inconvenience by rapid repair of the damaged vehicle and tender of a rental car during the process. What are the rules of this new process? How should it work out in practice and how do we adjust for abuses on the part of plaintiffs? How would *407the rule apply in contract cases of indemnity where there is no third party tort-feasor, but a willful failure to settle a claim? These are all complex issues which must ultimately be worked out on a case by case basis, developing a new body of law which I hope will make dealings among people far more equitable.