Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York v. Hall, Civ. A. No. AC-1760.
| Decision Date | 20 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. AC-1760. |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. Marion HALL and Ollie Nason, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
George M. Stuckey, Jr., Bishopville, S. C., for plaintiff.
Jacob H. Jennings, of Jennings & Jennings, Bishopville, S. C., for defendants.
Plaintiff insurance company seeks a Declaratory Judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, asking for a determination of its liability exposure as a liability insurance carrier before adjudication in the State Court as to whether or not its insured, defendant Ollie Nason, is liable for personal injuries sustained by defendant Marion Hall.
The precipitant facts before the Court reveal that on March 7, 1965, in Lee County, South Carolina, defendant Nason drove a 1955 Chevrolet insured by plaintiff here in front of an automobile being driven by defendant Marion Hall, blocking its path, and further blocked Hall with the Chevrolet when Hall tried to escape the impending fisticuffs1. With Hall's escape stymied, Nason alighted from the Chevrolet and subjected Hall to a brutal assault and battery, inflicting serious and permanent injuries upon him.
The sole question for determination here is whether or not the insurer of the Chevrolet is obligated under its contract to defend and/or respond in the State Court action against Nason.
Relevant portions of the insuring agreement provide:
The "assault and battery" exclusion is sufficient in itself to divest the insurer from its duty to defend in the State Court action. Clearly, the activities of which complaint is made were "committed by or at the direction of the insured." The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of Chief Judge Henley in Great American Ins. Co. v. Ratliff, 242 F.Supp. 983, 990-991 (E.D.Ark.1965).
It is also apparent that the injury to Hall did not arise "out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aryainejad v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co.
...Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Continental Insurance Cos., 126 N.J.Super. 29, 312 A.2d 664 (1973); Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York v. Hall, 246 F.Supp. 64 (E.D.S.C.1965). These courts have resolved this issue by determining whether the alleged "use" is reasonably consistent wi......
-
Holm v. Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co.
...an intentional tort committed away from the subject vehicle and after it had come to a halt. In Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York v. Hall, 246 F.Supp. 64 (E.D.S.C.1965), one driver used his vehicle to block the path of another driver, got out of his vehicle, and battered the other ......
-
Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Gilbert, HAWKEYE-SECURITY
...285, 290, quoting from Lawver v. Boling, 71 Wis.2d 408, 238 N.W.2d 514, 518 (1976). Similarly, in Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York v. Hall, 246 F.Supp. 64, 65 (E.D.S.C.1965), the court held that use of a vehicle to run another driver off the road and block his escape was not a "us......
-
McNeill v. Maryland Ins. Guaranty Ass'n
...(injury sustained from slipping on oil leaking from car held to be within provisions of policy) with Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York v. Hall, 246 F.Supp. 64 (E.D.S.C.1965) (no liability to plaintiff, whose way was blocked by insured's car and was then assaulted by insured) and Kraus v......