American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 18833
| Decision Date | 01 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 18833,18833 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | AMERICAN FIDELITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Joseph A. Shipman, Patsy G. Shipman, Joseph Williams, a minor, and Willie Simmons, Respondents. |
Pierce, Ranitz, Lee, Berry & Mahoney, Savannah, Ga., Felix B. Greene, Jr., Beaufort, for appellant.
Harvey, Harvey & Battey, Dowling, Dowling, Sanders & Dukes, Beaufort, Donald V. Richardson, III, of Whaley, McCutchen, Blanton & Richardson, Columbia, for respondents.
Following an automobile collision, Patsy G. Shipman recovered a judgment for $4,000.00 against Willie Simmons and Joseph Williams as joint tort feasors. Williams was uninsured. American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company, Simmons' liability carrier, paid $2,000.00 to the judgment creditor and seeks a declaratory judgment fastening liability upon Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, the injured party's liability carrier, for the balance due on the judgment. The circuit court denied this relief, and American has appealed. We affirm.
American contends that it has discharged the liability of its insured by paying one-half of the judgment and that the balance due on the judgment is the liability of the uninsured tort feasor, which should be paid by Hartford. The following excerpt from the brief indicates that this misconception has its roots in certain language found in a 1918 decision of this court:
'Under the principles of law applicable generally and followed by this Court, a joint judgment means that each of the joint debtors is liable to the creditor for one-half the judgment. This principle is well illustrated by our decision of Brown v. Southern Railway Co., 111 S.C. 140, 96 S.E. 701, cited by Judge Rhodes in his Order overruling the Demurrer:
The Brown case involved appeals on numerous exceptions by the railway company and the City of Spartanburg from a judgment against both as joint tort feasors. Each defendant sought reversal of the judgment against it. The language quoted from the opinion was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana Ins. Co. v. Noble, 569A84
...party defendants and litigate all of the issues of liability and damages in that action. See American Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 251 S.C. 507, 163 S.E.2d 926 (1968), and Widiss page 273. See also, Hill v. 3. He may file an action against the uninsured motorist a......
-
Auto Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Interstate Agency, Inc.
...or Concord or both. See Adcox v. American Home Assurance Co., 258 S.C. 331, 188 S.E.2d 785 (1972); American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartford A. & I. Co., 251 S.C. 507, 163 S.E.2d 926 (1968); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 249 S.C. 592, 155 S.E.2d 591 Plaintiff has shown an argua......
-
Vernon Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Matney, 1--1075A186
...party defendants and litigate all of the issues of liability and damages in that action. See American Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartoford Accident and Indem. Co., 251 S.C. 507, 163 S.E.2d 926 (1968), and Widiss page 273. See also, Hill v. Seaboard Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 3. He may file an act......
-
American States Ins. Co. v. Williams
...party defendants and litigate all of the issues of liability and damages in that action. See American Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 251 S.C. 507, 163 S.E.2d 926 (1968), and Widiss page 273. See also, Hill v. Seaboard Fire and Marine Ins. Co., supra. 3. He may file ......