Summary
In Reioux, the plaintiffs sought to recover from their insurer attorney fees incurred in an action against a third party for collision damage to the plaintiffs' automobile.
Summary of this case from Winscher v. HarrenOpinion
No. 44201.
January 18, 1974.
Insurance — suit against automobile liability insurer for costs of bringing action against third party — directed verdict for insurer — propriety.
Action in the Hennepin County Municipal Court brought by Patricia Reioux and Donald Reioux for expenses of recovering for damage to their automobile, which was insured by defendant insurance company. The case was tried before James D. Rogers, Judge, and at the close of the evidence, the court directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment entered and from an order denying their motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Harold E. Farnes, for appellants.
Coulter, Nelson Sullivan, Mark Sullivan, and Glenn R. Kessel, for respondent.
Heard before Knutson, C. J., and Otis, Todd, and Scott, JJ., and considered en banc.
Plaintiffs sought to recover from their insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, attorneys' fees expended in an action against a third party for collision damage to plaintiffs' automobile. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendant, State Farm. We affirm.
As there was no subrogation of plaintiffs' rights against the tortfeasor, and since the evidence presented by plaintiffs to establish a settlement contract with State Farm is legally insufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that such a contract in fact existed, State Farm was under no duty to institute an action against the third party or to reimburse plaintiffs for attorneys' fees expended in their election to sue the third-party tortfeasor. In addition, State Farm, which was neither party nor privy to the action between plaintiffs and the third party, is not bound by the extent of collision damage adjudicated in that action.
The matter of interest allegedly owed plaintiffs by State Farm was not adequately presented before this court and accordingly we do not pass on that issue.
Affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SHERAN, not having been a member of this court at at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.