Understanding the Stowers Demand Doctrine
Next year will see the 100th anniversary of the accident that led to the Stowers doctrine and was litigated in G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American…
May 28, 2019 at 06:00 AM
5 minute read
Next year will see the 100th anniversary of the accident that led to the Stowers doctrine and was litigated in G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indem. Co., 15 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1929, holding approved). This landmark case centered on a downtown Houston crash between a delivery truck owned by G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. and Mamie Bichon, who suffered severe injuries when her Ford coupe was overturned in the accident. She sued Stowers for $20,000.
American Indemnity, Stowers' auto insurance carrier, provided $5,000 in coverage. Bichon offered to settle for $4,000, but American Indemnity refused. At trial, Bichon won $14,107.14 in damages.
Stowers claimed that Bichon's offer to settle at $4,000 had been reasonable and American Indemnity should be responsible for the entire verdict, including the $9,107.14 in excess of its policy limit.
The court agreed with Stowers, stating that an insurance company owed its insured the duty to handle its affairs just as it would handle its own.
The Stowers demand doctrine was born.
The Basic Ingredients of a Successful Stowers Demand
There are certain requirements for every Stowers demand.
- There must be coverage. Without an insurance policy to make a claim against, a Stowers demand does not work.
- The demand cannot exceed policy limits. Insurers often do not disclose the policy limits of its insureds. Because of this, attorneys will often submit demands for the “policy limit” as opposed to a number amount.
- The defendant's liability must be reasonably clear. There should be little question as to who is at fault in the accident and that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant's actions.
- The offer must be reasonable. The demands of the plaintiff's attorney must be in line with the loss incurred and the injuries suffered.
- The demand must be unconditional and offer a full release. While the terms of a Stowers demand are very straightforward, this requirement can be the hardest for plaintiff's attorneys to get right.
Perfecting a Stowers demand is much easier in theory than it is in practice, and requires technical, not just substantial compliance. Each element of a Stowers demand must be satisfied. Insurers have no obligation to point out flaws or deficiencies and waive nothing by failing to object to a defective Stowers demand.
Here are a few things to remember when making your own Stowers demand.
Ambiguity Involving Multiple Insureds
A valid Stowers demand must be unambiguous and not subject to dispute. At least one Houston Court of Appeals case suggests that it also must include a release of all insureds, such as the driver and owner of the vehicle. Under Patterson v. Home State County Mut. Ins. Co., both insureds would need to be named or defined in order to have a valid Stowers demand.
A Minor Issue
As stated, a Stowers demand must be unconditional. But the very nature of a minor's status means that any settlement must have court and GAL approval. Consequently, a Stowers offer involving a minor could not occur. However, there are no cases on point addressing this issue.
Bundling of Claims
If a demand bundles three claims together—pairing a weak claim with a strong claim—it can disqualify the stronger claim from Stowers treatment. These types of offers are often treated as conditional offers, which, again, cannot satisfy Stowers.
No Reasonable Insurer Would Have Accepted It
A Stowers demand must have evidence that a reasonably prudent insurer would have accepted it, considering the likelihood and degree of the insured's potential exposure to an excess judgment. If coverage is not an issue, the demand must demonstrate, with accompanying documentation and surrounding circumstances, that a reasonably prudent insurer would accept it assuming there was a demand for policy limits.
Was the liability of the insured reasonably clear? Of course, “reasonably clear” is viewed from the perspective of the insurer. However, whether the insurer's liability was reasonably clear at the time of the demand is inherently fact-specific and presents a fact issue for the jury, not a question of law for the court. Simply because an excess verdict was rendered does not automatically mean liability was reasonably clear at the time the Stowers demand was made.
Give It Time
Assuming no disagreement on the terms of a Stowers demand, the time given to respond must be reasonable. In Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Bleeker, the appellate court stated that the carrier had to have a reasonable time to evaluate an offer. While, in that case, the court determined Trinity had time to evaluate the offer since the offer had no time limit, it did not say what would constitute a “reasonable” amount of time.
In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kelly, it was decided that a 14-day limit was considered reasonable under the “facts and circumstances” of the case. Whether there has been a reasonable time to respond, “will generally present a quintessential, constituent fact issue that is subsumed within the jury's application of the reasonably prudent insurer standard.” Which means we will know it when we see it.
When making a Stowers demand, it is best to check your work. The entire point is to settle claims quickly and efficiently. Making sure you have met the Stowers standard is the best way to do that.
Meloney Perry is the founding partner of the Dallas office of Perry Law P.C. She is the immediate past chair of the State Bar of Texas Insurance Law Section. Her practice focuses on insurance coverage, bad faith and class action litigation in multiple jurisdictions including Texas, Colorado and New Mexico. For more information about the firm, visit www.mperrylaw.com.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250