Court Opinion

ID: 9518939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:05:19.430344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:07.631486
License: Public Domain

White, C. J.,
separately dissenting.
Properly interpreted the insurance company’s sole claim of prejudice is the excessiveness of the default judgment entered against it. We now hold in this garnishment action that it was prejudiced because it did not receive the notice and summons of suit. Therefore, I feel, its relief should go no further than the degree of prejudice that it suffers from the entry of the claimed excessive default judgment. The remedy granted should not overreach the mischief sought to be prevented. It would appear that the plaintiff should be given a full opportunity to remove the mischief of the default judgment in the garnishment action by an offer to stipulate to the setting aside the entry of the default judgment, or by its consent to such entry, or by giving the garnishee a full opportunity to prove the amount and the nature of the prejudice that it has suffered as a result of the entry of the excessive default judgment.
The trial court properly granted a motion for a new trial in order to determine these issues. Although this court has the authority to do so, I believe that it is a grave injustice to the plaintiff in this case to arbitrarily dismiss the garnishment proceedings and completely exonerate the insurance company from liability.
If the law in Nebraska is that an insurance company, under the language of the policy present in this case, is completely exonerated from liability under the policy because of its failure to have been notified of suit, then the result in this'case should be as the majority holds. However our rule that prejudice, must be shown cannot *141logically extend beyond relief for the prejudice actually demonstrated by an excessive default judgment.