Allstate Insurance Company v. Philip Leasing Company, Civ. No. 842.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota |
| Citation | 214 F. Supp. 273 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 842. |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP LEASING COMPANY, a Corporation, Philip Motor Company, a Corporation, Ford Motor Company, a Corporation, General Motors Corporation, a Corporation, Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, a Corporation, Northwestern Engineering Company, a Corporation, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1963 |
214 F. Supp. 273
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
PHILIP LEASING COMPANY, a Corporation, Philip Motor Company, a Corporation, Ford Motor Company, a Corporation, General Motors Corporation, a Corporation, Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, a Corporation, Northwestern Engineering Company, a Corporation, Defendants.
Civ. No. 842.
United States District Court D. South Dakota, W. D.
March 1, 1963.
As Amended March 27, 1963.
Donald R. Shultz and Horace R. Jackson, of Whiting, Lynn, Freiberg & Shultz, Rapid City, S. D., for plaintiff.
Graves & Lehnert, Rapid City, S. D., for Philip Leasing Co.
Martens, Goldsmith, May & Porter, Pierre, S. D., Warran May, Pierre, S. D., for Philip Motor Co.
Hanley, Costello & Porter, Rapid City, S. D., J. M. Costello, Rapid City, S. D., for Ford Motor Co.
Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, S. D., Ellsworth Evans, Sioux Falls, S. D., for General Motors Co.
Bangs, McCullen, Butler & Foye, Rapid City, S. D., with Mr. Thomas H. Foye and Thomas E. Simmons, Rapid City, S. D., for Employers Liability Assurance Co. and Northwestern Engineering Co.
BECK, District Judge.
This is an action in which Allstate under Section 2201, Title 28 U.S.C.A., is seeking a declaration, that it is neither obligated to defend Philip Leasing Company in another action in this court entitled, John Lohner v. Philip Leasing Company1 et al., Civil No. 368 C.D., nor to pay any judgment against it which might be entered in the course of that trial.
Basically, it is Allstate's position, according to the allegations of its complaint and the arguments on the motion to dismiss, that there is no contractual obligation to defend that action, because Lohner was employed by Leasing when injured and therefor outside the scope of its insurance coverage under the following exclusions:
"THIS POLICY DOES NOT APPLY:
* * * * * * *
"(d) under coverage A, to bodily injury to or sickness, disease or death of any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of (1) domestic employment by the insured, if benefits therefor are in whole or in part either payable or required to be provided under any workmen's compensation law, or (2) other employment by the insured;
"(e) under coverage A, to any obligation for which the insured or any carrier as his insurer may be held liable under any workmen's compensation, unemployment compensation or disability benefits law, or under any similar law; * * *."
Other allegations to support its position and to answer the defendants' joint motion to dismiss are to the effect: (1) that Lohner's action is against all of the defendants in this case; (2) that it is based on negligence of Leasing; (3) that it is pending and undetermined; (4) that Lohner's $1,000,000 claim is based on extensive permanent injuries; (5) that the employment issue can not as against Lohner be adjudicated in this case since he isn't a party and for jurisdictional reasons can not be made such; (6) that the wife of Lohner, according to information and belief, threatens to commence suit for substantial sums; (7) that the defendants in this action claim that it is the duty of Allstate under its policy of insurance, at its expense, to defend Lohner's action in behalf of Leasing and any other actions arising out of the accident in which he was involved and to pay any final judgment in said actions against Leasing up to the policy limits; (8) that Allstate is faced with multiplicity of actions, and (9) that it is necessary to have its rights and duties declared and determined in this action before the other action is tried.
Further, to complete the factual aspect of the case, it is to be noted that Allstate as it answered Lohner's complaint in behalf of Leasing, injected the employment issue as an affirmative defense and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Ed., Cincinnati v. Department of HEW, C-1-74-185.
...more effective or where a pending action will dispose of all the controverted issues, see e. g. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Philip Leasing Co., 214 F.Supp. 273 (D.S.D. 1963). See generally: McGraw-Edison Co., supra; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., supra; Sears, Roebuck & ......
-
Seaboard Finance Company v. Davis, 67 C 885.
...F.2d 558 (4th Cir. 1941); Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Quarles, 92 F.2d 321 (4th Cir. 1937); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Philip Leasing Co., 214 F.Supp. 273 (W.D.S.D.1963). See, also, Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183-184, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952) 9 The Ac......
-
County of Wyoming, NY v. Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co., Civ. No. 1971-172.
...is not a required party in an action to determine the coverage of an insurance policy, see Allstate Insurance Co. v. Philip Leasing Co., 214 F.Supp. 273, 276 (D.S.D.1963), and, although there is a decision to the contrary, see United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Ditoro, 206 F.Supp. 528......
-
Portsmouth Hospital v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 5688
...parents would be proper parties they are not necessary parties to the proceedings. Allstate Insurance Company v. Philip Leasing Company, 214 F.Supp. 273, 276 (D.C.S.Dak.1963); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Fritzler, 42 Wyo. 446, 484, 296 P. 206. See Annot. 71 A.L.R.2d 723, The answer to question No.......