 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Glassing12/20/1994
, 51 St.Rep. 1437
Submitted on Briefs August 18, 1994.
Defendant Gary Glassing (Glassing) appeals an order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul). We reverse.
While Glassing raises three issues on appeal, we shall only address one issue, as it is dispositive of the case:
Is St. Paul's action barred by the statute of limitations?
This case was previously before us in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1993), 257 Mont. 47, 847 P.2d 705 (St. Paul I), which set forth the underlying facts giving rise to this action.
St. Paul's insured, Ellen Lynn (Lynn), and Glassing were involved in a motor vehicle collision in Bozeman on June 12, 1985. Lynn filed a personal injury action against Glassing in Gallatin County District Court, and on November 17, 1989, judgment was entered in favor of Lynn in the net amount of $95,377.92.
At the time of the underlying motor vehicle collision, St. Paul insured Lynn with a policy which provided coverage in the event that Lynn was injured by an underinsured motorist. At the same time, Allstate insured Glassing against liability resulting from the operation of his motor vehicle. However, the limit of Glassing's liability coverage was $50,000.
On December 15, 1989, Lynn made a demand for underinsured motorist benefits to her insurer, St. Paul. St. Paul paid Lynn on or about May 31, 1990, in the amount of $51,461.16, which represented the difference between Glassing's $50,000 policy limits and the judgment with interest to the date of St. Paul's payment. On June 28, 1990, Lynn executed a release in favor of Glassing and Allstate, wherein Lynn acknowledged the receipt of $50,000, the policy limits of Glassing's liability coverage. After receiving payment from Allstate and St. Paul, Lynn filed a satisfaction of judgment on October 11, 1990. Stipulations of dismissal with prejudice were entered on October 11, 1990, and October 15, 1990, dismissing the Lynn v. Glassing action.
St. Paul initiated this action against Glassing on July 24, 1990, to recover the $51,461.16 payment, together with interest and costs it paid to Lynn pursuant to her underinsured motorist coverage. St. Paul originally filed its complaint in the United States District Court, however, the complaint was subsequently dismissed and refiled in the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County. Glassing then moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. This Court reversed the District Court's ruling in St. Paul I, that this state lacked personal jurisdiction over Glassing, and remanded the case for further proceedings. St. Paul I, 847 P.2d at 708.
On remand, Glassing moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., on three grounds:
(1) St. Paul's claim was barred by the statute of limitations;
(2) St. Paul's claim was barred by the release and satisfaction of judgment in the underlying action;
(3) Glassing was not underinsured.
After considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, the District Court rejected Glassing's arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of St. Paul, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order filed August 6, 1993. Glassing appeals from that order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review that this Court applies in reviewing a grant of summary judgment is the same as that initially utilized by the district court. Yo
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|