Pfeiffer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Walter Pfeiffer, claiming that the denial of insurance coverage and the failure to give timely notice of coverage to the Department of Motor Vehicles caused him to' lose his operator license and the registration card and tags to his automobile, sued the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and its agent for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud, intentional tortious alteration of an automobile liability insurance policy and negligence. The policy, issued on March 11, 1961, stated that it became effective at 12:01 a.m. The insured had an accident on the same ⁵⁸ day at 1:00 p.m.

The insurer, claiming the policy did not become effective until 8:00 p.m., denied coverage on March 29, 1961, and neglected or refused to notify the department either of the coverage or the withdrawal thereof. As a result of losing his license and tags and the consequent inability to transport himself to and from work, the insured claimed that he lost his automobile and his livelihood. Seven months later, on November 7, 1961, the insurer acknowledged its liability by filing an SR-21 form showing that the policy was in effect at the time of the accident. The demurrer to the original declaration having been sustained, the plaintiff filed an amended declaration on August 6, 1964.

A general issue plea was filed on August 20, 1964. At the same time the defendants sought to discover, among other things, the facts on which the plaintiff relied to show (11) 1 that the insurance company “wrongfully and wilfully” breached the contract of insurance; (12) that the company “wilfully, fraudulently and maliciously” altered the policy and “deceitfully” misrepresented the provisions thereof; (13) that the defendants “combined, connived, conspired and colluded between and among themselves and other persons” to defraud and deprive the plaintiff of his contract rights; (14) that the defendants “tortiously and intentionally” altered the policy and “maliciously” interfered with the lawful rights of the plaintiff; and (18) that if the plaintiff were absent from his employment “because of the occurrence,” to “state as to each such absence the particular reason therefor, the dates thereof and the compensation, if any, lost thereby.” The answers of the plaintiff, filed more than two months later on Octber 23, 1964, were to the effect (11) that the defendants, although knowing that the “policy covered the accident” and that they were wrong in believing “that the plaintiff was too helpless or ignorant to secure his rights,” yet “maliciously, wilfully and intentionally violated the policy”; (12) that the defendants either “falsely altered its records to show an effective time of 8:00 p.m.” as to when the policy took effect ⁵⁹ or “fraudulently” or “deceitfully misrepresented” such, records; (13) that the “conspiracy and combination consists of the acts and conduct” set forth in the answers to 11 and 12; (14) that the answer to this interrogatory is the same as 11 and 12; and (18) that the plaintiff “made $4021.67 in 1960,” that “in 1961, the year in which his license tags and automobile drivers license were taken up as a result of defendants’ unlawful acts” he was “able to earn” only $2127.82 and that the unlawful acts of the defendants “directly contributed to this wage loss.” The exceptions of the defendants to the answers, claiming that they were insufficient and evasive, were promptly sustained by the court with leave to amend. After a delay of more than two hundred and forty days the plaintiff filed supplemental answers to the interrogatories on June 25, 1965. The answers to 11, 12, 13 and 14 were substantially the same as before.

But as to 18, although admitting his inability to state the exact time lost because one of his employers had destroyed some of his work records, he informed the defendants that on seven days in March, April and May of 1961 he had lost 62j^ hours work for a tile company which, at $2.60 an hour, amounted to $162.50; and that on thirteen days in January, February, April and May of 1962 he had lost a total of $451.75 from another tile company. He further indicated that additional hours of available yet lost work would be established by his employers at the trial. Again, the defendants, claiming that the answers were still insufficient and evasive, filed exceptions to the supplemental answers because the replies to four of the questions were basically similar to the original answers and because they had a right to an answer with respect to lost wages prior to, and not at the time of, the trial. Again the lower court sustained the exceptions with leave to amend within