Previous Story
Couple sues Guam insurance firm for not defending them in wrongful death lawsuit
Couple says they were forced to settle with family of fatal car accident for $300,000
A couple is suing a Guam insurance company for allegedly not defending them in a wrongful death lawsuit over a fatal car accident in 2013 that forced them to settle with the decedent’s family for $300,000.
Dong-Youl Lim and Moon Hee Ko are suing Pacific Indemnity Insurance Co. in Superior Court for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and fraud and intentional misrepresentation.
Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company, through Robert T. Torres, moved the couple’s lawsuit to the U.S. District Court yesterday.
Torres said the plaintiffs are claiming damages that are in excess of $75,000 to warrant the case’s removal to the district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Lim and Ko, through Charles P. Reyes Jr. and William R. Satterberg, asked the Superior Court to hold the insurance company liable to pay them damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.
Pacific Indemnity Insurance Co. issued an insurance policy to Kim, Ko, and their son, Woo Hyun, on Feb. 26, 2012.
According to Reyes and Satterberg in the complaint, Woo Hyun, while driving the car, hit Jefferson Kiauol Keju on Jan. 2, 2013. Keju was killed after being hit by a second car.
Police and court records showed that Keju had just been beaten up by two men and was running away when he was hit by Woo Hyun’s car.
When Pacific Indemnity was told about Keju’s death, it notified the couple in writing that the company was the insurer for the accident that Woo Hyun was involved in and it would take exclusive control of all claims made against them as a result of the accident.
On June 23, 2013, Pacific Indemnity responded to a letter from attorney Stephen Nutting on behalf of the decedent’s brother, requesting that Nutting provide birth and death certificates of the decedent and any documentation appointing the mother as administrator of Keju’s estate.
Reyes and Satterberg said Nutting did so and negotiations were conducted between Pacific Indemnity and Nutting, which resulted in Pacific Indemnity paying $15,000, which it claimed to be the policy limits, to the estate of Keju, in November 2013.
Reyes and Satterberg said this purported settlement was not made by the decedent’s personal representative for the benefit of his heirs and did not have court approval as required by the statute.
The lawyers said that, on Dec. 31, 2014, representative of Keju sued the couple.
Pacific Indemnity allegedly informed plaintiffs that it has no responsibility to defend them in the suit and that it would not provide them any defense.
The lawyers said Pacific Indemnity instructed the couple to seek a lawyer to defend them, but informed them that it would not pay for this legal representation.
Threatened with substantial loss resulting from the liability explained to them by Pacific Indemnity, the couple sought a settlement to limit their liability.
On March 14, 2016, the couple agreed to a stipulated judgment against them in the amount of $300,000 in exchange for a covenant not to sue.
Reyes and Satterberg said as a further direct and proximate result of Pacific Indemnity’s breach of contract, the plaintiffs were sued for wrongful death and were forced to enter into a settlement to avoid a catastrophic financial loss.
The lawyers said plaintiffs relied on defendant’s misrepresentation and fraudulent conduct and were induced to pay the premium and to continue their insurance policy with Pacific Indemnity.
