Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Morphew v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
Citations: 256 Ark. 809; 510 S.W.2d 543; 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1542Docket: 74-50
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 24, 1974; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Darrell A. Morphew appeals a circuit court judgment favoring Safeco Insurance Company of America concerning a liability insurance policy related to an automobile owned by Larry Vanderburg. On November 12, 1971, Thomas Melvin Francis, driving Vanderburg's vehicle with permission, collided with Morphew's car, causing injuries and damages. Safeco had provided coverage for Vanderburg’s vehicle and paid some of Morphew's medical and repair bills. After failing to settle with Safeco, Morphew sued both Francis and Vanderburg, obtaining a default judgment of $6,000 against Francis after dismissing claims against Vanderburg. Morphew then filed a suit directly against Safeco, asserting that Francis was covered under the policy while driving with Vanderburg's consent. He claimed Safeco was aware of the lawsuit against Francis, had paid for some damages, was notified of the judgment against Francis, and failed to pay the judgment amount despite demands. Safeco admitted to the accident and coverage but raised affirmative defenses, arguing that Vanderburg had not complied with policy requirements and that Francis had not received proper notice of the suit. The trial court, sitting as a jury, ruled in favor of Safeco. It concluded that Morphew did not demonstrate sufficient diligence in ensuring Francis was notified of the lawsuit, thus failing to meet due process requirements. The court noted that without evidence of evasiveness on Francis's part, it could not rule in favor of Morphew. On appeal, Morphew argues that an injured plaintiff can directly pursue a liability insurance carrier after obtaining a judgment against the insured. Safeco Insurance Company of America was obligated to defend its insured, Thomas Melvin Francis, in a lawsuit due to its knowledge of the suit. The failure to provide a defense binds Safeco to pay any judgment against Francis, assuming a valid judgment exists. The crux of the appeal hinges on the validity of service on Francis; if service was invalid, any resulting judgment would be void and unenforceable against both him and his insurer. The court found that the judgment against Francis was indeed void due to improper service, as all attempts to serve him were directed to his Arkansas residence, where he was a resident at the time of the incident. Morphew’s legal team followed statutory procedures for serving non-resident motorists, but there was no evidence to establish that Francis was a non-resident or had absented himself from the state, which is necessary for applying the non-resident motorist statute. The statute's purpose is to ensure service on non-resident motorists or residents who have left the state, not on residents who cannot be located. The court noted potential complications if Safeco had attempted to defend Francis under the flawed service. Ultimately, the judgment was affirmed, indicating that Safeco was not liable due to the void judgment against Francis.