Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 December 1972 |
| Citation | 298 A.2d 288,121 N.J.Super. 583 |
| Parties | CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BELFORD TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and James T. Neighbors and James G. Mitchell, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Kisselman, Deighan, Montano, King & Summers, Camden, for defendants James T. Neighbors and James G. Mitchell, filed a statement in lieu of brief.
Ernest F. Picknally, Camden, for defendant-appellant Belford Trucking Co., Inc. (Schuenemann & Picknally, Camden, attorneys).
David M. Mayfield, Camden, for plaintiff-respondent Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. (Martin & Crawshaw, Haddonfield, attorneys).
Before Judges COLLESTER, LEONARD and HALPERN.
For the reasons expressed by Judge Wick in his opinion reported at 116 N.J.Super. 39, 280 A.2d 848 (Ch.Div.1971), we affirm his judgment denying Belford's motion to set aside service of process and to dismiss plaintiff's declaratory judgment suit.
We are left with the sole issue as to whether plaintiff Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, or defendant Belford Trucking Company, Inc., should be required to pay for the injuries sustained by Clarence P. Young and Carl Hellman, and the expenses incurred by plaintiff in defending defendants James T. Neighbors and James G. Mitchell. The reasonableness of the settlement made by plaintiff with Young and Hellman for $4,000, and the expenses it incurred in connection with defending the suit in the sum of $1,580.30, have not been questioned by Belford.
We are in accord with the views expressed by Judge Wick that under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 315, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, Belford, a certificated interstate carrier, became the primary insurer of the tractor and trailer leased to it by Neighbors, and that plaintiff's policy qualified as excess coverage only. Hagans v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 465 F.2d 1249 (10 Cir. 1972); Cox v. Bond Transportation, Inc., 53 N.J. 186, 249 A.2d 579 (1969), cert. den. 395 U.S. 935, 89 S.Ct. 1999, 23 L.Ed.2d 450 (1969). This is particularly true where, as here, Belford is self-insured and no policy of insurance is before us for construction.
The judgment below is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Penn Nat. Bank v. Stonebridge Ltd.
... ... A. R. C., ... Inc., John B. Canuso, Joan E. Canuso and Heritage ... Finance Co. (Giordano, Halleran & Crahay, Middletown, ... Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Belford Trucking Co., 116 ... ...
-
Magill v. Ford Motor Co.
...116 N.J.Super. 39, 280 A.2d 848, 850 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1971), aff'd sub nom.Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Belford Trucking Co., 121 N.J.Super. 583, 298 A.2d 288 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1972) (citing a state rule instructing that a corporate defendant is a resident of the county where......
-
Gamble v. Main, 15390
... ... Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co., 12 Cal.3d 374, 525 P.2d 88, 115 Cal.Rptr. 648 ... Hubschman Construction Co., Inc., [76 Ill.2d 31], 27 Ill.Dec. 746, 389 N.E.2d ... ...
-
American Nurses Ass'n v. Passaic General Hospital
...The above holding is consistent with the reasoning of other cases concerning similar issues. In Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Belford Trucking Co., 121 N.J.Super. 583, 298 A.2d 288 (App.Div.1972), a trucking company which rented out the trucks used for its business became a certified self-insur......