Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harrison v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's

May 28, 2010

H. RAY HARRISON AND JULIE HARRISON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. 20056 ISSUED TO JEFFREY HARTFORD, M.D. EFFECTIVE FROM JUNE 1, 2004 TO JUNE 1, 2005 WITH AN RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 1, 2003; NAS INSURANCE SERVICES INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.



Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for Ada County. The Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eismann, Chief Justice.

2010 Opinion No. 55

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

This is an appeal from an order confirming an arbitrator‟s award and from an order awarding court costs and attorney fees for the confirmation proceedings. Because there was no timely appeal from the order confirming the arbitrator‟s award and there is no final judgment entered on the remaining issues, we dismiss the appeal.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ray and Julie Harrison, who are married, had claims for medical malpractice against Dr. Jeffrey Hartford based upon his treatment of Ray in November 2003. At the time of such treatment, Dr. Hartford had in force a policy of medical malpractice insurance that he had obtained from NAS Insurance Services, Inc., but the insurance coverage was provided by certain underwriters at Lloyd‟s, London. For convenience, NAS Insurance Services, Inc., and the underwriters at Lloyd‟s, London, will be collectively called "Lloyd‟s."

Dr. Hartford had a long history of substance abuse. In order to retain his medical license, in January 1999 he had entered into a stipulation and order with the Board of Professional Discipline of the Idaho State Board of Medicine. That order included the requirement that Dr. Hartford "shall abstain completely from the use of alcohol." Therefore, the Lloyd‟s policy included an endorsement stating: "In consideration of the premium charged the attached Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, dated January 29, 1999, is hereby made part of the policy. Any failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Order will be in violation of the policy and will render the coverage void."

On April 28, 2004, the Harrisons filed a lawsuit against Dr. Hartford and others seeking to recover damages resulting from Ray‟s injuries caused by Dr. Hartford‟s negligent treatment. When Lloyd‟s learned that Dr. Hartford had violated the terms of the stipulation and order by drinking alcohol, it denied coverage based upon the above-quoted endorsement. Eventually, Dr. Hartford settled with the Harrisons by paying them $32,500 and assigning to them any claims he may have against Lloyd‟s.

On August 25, 2006, the Harrisons filed this lawsuit against Lloyd‟s based upon Dr. Hartford‟s assignment of his claims. In their amended complaint filed later, the Harrisons sought damages for breach of contract, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for the tort of bad faith. They also sought a declaratory judgment that Lloyd‟s was required to indemnify Dr. Hartford for all sums he owes by reason of settlement or judgment up to the limits of coverage under the insurance policy. Lloyd‟s moved to compel arbitration as provided in the insurance policy. The district court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings until completion of the arbitration. On January 25, 2008, the arbitrator issued a decision holding that because "Dr. Hartford had violated the special endorsement,. . . the coverage as to Harrisons malpractice claim was void, there was no breach of contract and Harrisons‟ causes of action are dismissed."

On April 17, 2008, the Harrisons filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator‟s award. On April 25, 2008, Lloyd‟s filed an application to confirm the award. On July 28, 2008, the district court entered an order denying the motion to vacate the arbitrator‟s award and confirming that award. On August 11, 2008, it entered what purports to be a judgment "against H. Ray Harrison and Julie Harrison in favor of Defendants." On September 11, 2008, the Harrisons filed a notice of appeal from that purported judgment. Lloyd‟s sought court costs and attorney fees, and the district court granted that request, awarding Lloyd‟s a total of $11,245.50. On October 10, 2008, the district court entered an "Amended Judgment" against the Harrisons in that amount.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Did the Harrisons timely appeal the order confirming the arbitrator‟s award?

2. Is there a final judgment in this lawsuit?

3. Is Lloyd‟s entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.