Hamilton v. Northfield Insurance Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma answered two certified questions concerning prevailing-party attorney fees under 36 O.S. § 3629(B). It held that only timely settlement offers concerning the underlying insurance claim, made within the statutory sixty-day period, may be considered; later offers to settle the ensuing litigation cannot determine prevailing-party status under the statute. The court concluded that Billy Hamilton was the prevailing party after obtaining a judgment following Northfield Insurance Company's rejection of his claim.

Holdings

1. For purposes of determining prevailing-party status and awarding attorney fees under 36 O.S. § 3629(B), courts may consider only timely offers made by the insurer to settle the underlying insurance claim within the statutory sixty-day window; offers to settle the ensuing lawsuit made after that period may not be considered.
2. No. Because a settlement offer made during litigation after the statutory sixty-day period is not a settlement offer contemplated by section 3629(B), it cannot be used in determining prevailing-party status, and the court need not compare it with a verdict augmented by litigation costs and attorney fees.
3. Hamilton was the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees because he obtained a judgment in his favor after Northfield rejected his insurance claim, and Northfield's later $45,000 offer to resolve the lawsuit was not a statutory settlement offer under section 3629(B).

Questions Presented

1. Whether, in determining the prevailing party under 36 O.S. § 3629(B), a court may consider an insurer's settlement offers made outside the statute's sixty-day period for offers concerning the insured's claim.
2. Whether, in determining the prevailing party under 36 O.S. § 3629(B), a court should add litigation costs and attorney fees incurred before a later litigation settlement offer to the verdict for comparison with that offer.

Disposition

approved