Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
Decision Date | 11 January 1961 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 1110. |
Citation | 189 F. Supp. 854 |
Parties | William J. DAWSON, as Receiver of Central Standard Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, by F. M. Smith, Sioux Falls, S. D., for plaintiff.
Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, by Ellsworth E. Evans, Sioux Falls, S. D., for defendant.
Defendant, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, a corporation, on a separate trial1 of the issues raised by its second defense,2 the amendment3 thereto, the plaintiff's reply4 and the record made in connection therewith, is on this trial seeking a dismissal of the plaintiff's suit to collect the $50,000 specified in the defendant's "Insurance Companies Blanket Bond."5
The request for such dismissal is predicated on the theory that the plaintiff's settlement of a principal's obligation on said bond and the obligation of others, had operated to discharge the defendant's thereon as surety and any and all subrogation rights it otherwise could have asserted: to which the plaintiff replies: (1) that the defendant's obligation on the bond is an absolute undertaking to indemnify and hold harmless, against any loss sustained by the insured, one not qualified or contingent upon a remedy against the principal or others, but contingent only on proof of loss through dishonest or fraudulent acts of any one or more of the principals and (2) on the theory of the defendant being a surety on the bond, that the settlements effected, were but covenants not to sue, hence not a defense.
From that part of the entire record which is material on the questions raised by that defense, it is established and the court finds: (1) that Virgil D. Dardi, Paul Cliver and Nathan H. Wendell, Jr., throughout the period from June 11, 1954 to December 6, 1955, were "employees" of the Central Standard Insurance Company, referred to in said bond and as therein defined; (2) that Central during the period through dishonest or fraudulent acts of its "employees",6 or some of them, had a loss of property to the extent of $3,177,381.12; (3) that the defendant after the commencement of this action, timely, served "Notice of Suit and Tender of Defense Thereof"7 on said Dardi, Cliver and Wendell; (4) that Dardi, Cliver, and Wendell failed or refused to accept the tender of defense communicated by the defendant in that notice, (5) that negotiations between the plaintiff, Dardi, United Dye & Chemical Corporation, the Atlantic Bank of New York and Hyman D. Lehrich, another defendant in the New York action, conducted after the commencement of this action and service of said notice of tender of defense, resulted in settlements and payments to the plaintiff as follows: Dardi $8,500, United Dye & Chemical Corporation $50,000, the Atlantic Bank of New York $25,000 and Hyman D. Lehrich $8,500, under the terms and conditions of certain releases8 executed by the receiver for Central and delivered to the releasees in New York as those sums were paid; (6) that those settlements were effected without permission or consent by the defendant, but with notice from the defendant to the plaintiff that it would regard its obligation on the bond as having been discharged if those settlements were consummated and the plaintiff's New York action9 thereupon should be dismissed; (7) that the Circuit Court at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on August 14, 1958, entered the following order, formal parts being omitted:
(8) that the receiver pursuant to the terms of that order signed said releases at Sioux Falls and that he thereafter received and deposited the settlement sums as general assets in the receivership account; (9) that the offers for those settlements came as a result of Central's claim in the New York action that each of the offerors had a part in its total alleged loss; (10) that this defendant was not made a party defendant in the New York action; (11) that it at the time had authority to do business in that state and had a resident agent therein upon whom process could have been served; (12) that Dardi was a principal on said bond, the other releasees were not; (13) that Cliver and Wendell also were principals; (14) that United Dye & Chemical Corporation and the Atlantic Bank of New York are solvent, but Cliver and Wendell are not, and (15) that the parties hereto by written stipulation have agreed:
"That the application for the insurance policy or contract of insurance was made by Central Standard Insurance Company in Sioux Falls, South Dakota; that the premium for said policy of insurance was paid by checks issued by the said Central Standard Insurance Company in Sioux Falls, South Dakota drawn upon a Sioux Falls, South Dakota bank; that the said policy was delivered to said Central Standard Insurance Company in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and accepted by said Central Standard Insurance Company in that city; that said policy was retained during all times material herein by said Central Standard Insurance Company in Sioux Falls, South Dakota until possession of said policy was taken by the Receiver, who has retained possession of the same in the State of South Dakota."11
Included in Central's alleged total loss is one item for $909,381.12, involving General American Insurance Company, a Texas corporation, Inland Empire Insurance Company, a Utah corporation, Guardian Insurance Company, a South Dakota corporation and United Benefit Fire Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, two disbursements, without consideration to Central, one for $200,000 to Limestreet Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and another for $1,818,000 to Royal American Insurance Company, an Alabama corporation, also an appropriation out of Central's assets on deposit with the Atlantic Bank of New York of $250,000 to pay a United Dye & Chemical Corporation's obligation to that bank in that amount.
Other material factual aspects are settled by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Service Mutual Insurance Company v. Bottum
...of performance, according to the law and usage of the place where it is made." (Emphasis supplied) See Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Md., D.So.Dak.S.D., 189 F.Supp. 854. It is very difficult to determine at times whether an obligation under a contract is one of "construction" or one......
-
Morkirk, Inc. v. WALTER E. HELLER & COMPANY
...80 S.D. 26, 117 N.W.2d 804 (1962), Westun v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.2d 422, (8 Cir. 1926), Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 189 F.Supp. 854 (S.D. 1961), and Minnesota Amusement Company v. Larkin, 299 F.2d 142 (8 Cir. That section, aside from comity rules between......
-
FIRST FEDERAL BANK v. HARTFORD ACC. AND INDEM.
...or hypothecates property as security therefor." A fidelity bond was held not to be a surety contract in Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company, 189 F.Supp. 854 (D.S.D. 1961). I conclude this to be the general rule. Lundeen v. Schumacher, 52 S.D. 149, 216 N.W. 883, 884 (1927); Federal Deposi......
-
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., s. 93-1137
...fidelity insurance as surety insurance, they are not instructive in the present analysis. See, e.g., Dawson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 189 F.Supp. 854, 865 (D.S.D.1961); Lundeen v. Schumacher, 52 S.D. 149, 216 N.W. 883, 884 (1927); FDIC v. Western Surety Co., 66 S.D. 503, 285 N.W. 909, 911 ......