Carstairs v. Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co. of New York
| Decision Date | 04 June 1883 |
| Citation | 18 F. 473 |
| Parties | CARSTAIRS and others v. MECHANICS' & TRADERS' INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
John H Thomas, for plaintiffs.
John S Tyson and S. T. Wallis, for defendant.
In my judgment, one of the defenses set up in this case is fatal to the plaintiffs' right to recover, and I shall consider but that one. The suit is brought to recover from the insurance company the value of goods which were lost while in transit from Peoria to Philadelphia by railroad, in consequence of the car in which they were carried being wrecked by a collision with other cars. This was one of the risks insured against under the open policy, and the written indorsement thereon, issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The policy was for one year and was issued several months before these goods were shipped, and both the policy and the written indorsement thereon, expressly stipulate that the insurance company in case of loss, is to be subrogated to all claims against the transporter of the merchandise.
Now the bill of lading under which the plaintiffs claim the goods provides that in case of loss, by which the carrier incurs any liability, the carrier shall have the full benefit of any insurance which may have been effected upon or on account of the goods. Of course, this agreement in the bill of lading is not an agreement that insurance shall be effected; but if insurance is effected, and the holder of the bill of lading gets compensation from the insurer, it would seem clear that unless the stipulation is void, the holder of the bill of lading must be defeated, to the extent of the compensation which he has so obtained, in any action which he may bring against the carrier. If, therefore, the plaintiffs should recover in this suit compensation from the insurance company, the agreement in the bill of lading, if valid, has made it impossible for them to do what, by both the printed and the written clauses of the policy, they agreed to do, namely, to subrogate the insurance company to their claim against the carrier. They have in effect agreed with the insurance company to subrogate it to their claim against the railroad, and have also agreed with the railroad to subrogate it to any claim they may have against the insurance company. This result can be avoided only by showing that the agreement in the bill of lading is one which the carrier is not permitted to make. And counsel for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerlach v. Grain Shippers' Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n
... ... entitled. Carstairs v. Insurance Co. (C. C.) 18 F ... 473; Fayerweather v. Insurance Co., ... ...
-
Img Worldwide, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co.
...208 So. 2d 280 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968); DeCespedes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co., 193 So.2d 224 (Fla. 1967); Carstairs v. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 18 F. 473 (Md. Cir. Ct. 1883). Great Divide cites to several cases that hold an insurer who does not step up to defend the insured cannot be heard to......
-
Roberts v. Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J.
...and Trust Co., 123 Pa. 516, 16 A. 790, upon which the appellant relies, cited as authority the ruling in Carstairs v. Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co. of New York, 1883, 18 F. 473, which, incidentally, rested upon the reasoning of a lower federal court at a time when such courts were independ......
-
Matthews v. Phoenix Ins. Company
... ... 312; Dilling v. Draemel, ... 16 Daly 104, 9 N.Y.S. 497; Carstairs v. Ins. Co., 18 ... F. 473; Ins. Co. v. Fidelity Title & T. Co., 123 Pa ... ...