Fazio v. American Automobile Insurance Company
Decision Date | 15 December 1955 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 5119,5120. |
Citation | 136 F. Supp. 184 |
Parties | Charles FAZIO, Individually, and for the Use and Benefit of His Minor Son David Ray Fazio v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Mrs. Emma Y. Pierce, and Fred D. Lose, in His Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Mrs. Nellie M. Mosby. Joe MOORE v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Mrs. Emma Y. Pierce, and Fred D. Lose, in His Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Mrs. Nellie M. Mosby. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Wellborn Jack, Shreveport, La., for plaintiffs.
Jackson, Mayer & Kennedy, Shreveport, La., for defendants.
Harold K. Wood, Westchester, Pa., for Mrs. Emma Y. Pierce.
Blanchard, Goldstein, Walker & O'Quin, Shreveport, La., for Fred D. Lose.
Presented for decision is the question of whether valid service was effected, and jurisdiction of the person obtained, in two related civil damage suits brought by Louisiana citizens against the foreign executor of the estate of a nonresident motorist who was involved in an automobile accident while using the highways of this State.
The accident occurred on September 6, 1954, on U. S. Highway 71 in Bossier Parish, Louisiana. At that time and place, Joe Moore, one of the plaintiffs, was driving a Chevrolet in a southerly direction on the highway. Riding with him as a passenger was David Ray Fazio, a minor who is represented here by his father.1 A Cadillac proceeding in the opposite direction, owned and occupied by Nellie M. Mosby, a citizen and resident of Kansas, but being operated by Emma Y. Pierce, a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania, collided with the Chevrolet, causing injuries to Moore and young Fazio.
The complaints allege that the accident resulted solely and proximately from Mrs. Pierce's negligence, which they claim is legally attributable to Mrs. Mosby, as respondeat superior. Because of this, plaintiffs contend they are entitled to recover damages from Mrs. Pierce, Mrs. Mosby and their liability insurer.2
The insurer is qualified to do business in Louisiana, and was served properly through its designated agent, the Secretary of State. Mrs. Pierce also was served through that official, and was given the requisite notice by registered mail. Neither of these defendants questions the validity of service, or jurisdiction, and both have answered, denying liability.
Mrs. Mosby was killed instantly in the accident. Substituted service upon her estate was attempted by serving the Secretary of State, and by mailing the registered notice to Fred D. Lose, a citizen and resident of Kansas, who has qualified there as executor of the estate. He has appeared specially in each suit and moved to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process, and for lack of jurisdiction over his person.
The motions thus require an interpretation of the Louisiana Non-Resident Motorist Statute, LSA-R.S. 13:3474, 13:3475, reading as follows:
It will be noted at once that this statute makes no express provision for substituted service upon executors or administrators of foreign estates. The question is, accordingly: Does a fair interpretation of the statute reveal that the Legislature intended such representatives to be subject to it? We think not.
Statutes of this type — made necessary by the peripatetics of our population in the automobile age — have negatived to a large extent the fundamental teachings of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beck v. Lund's Fisheries, Inc.
...16 N.J. 579, 109 A.2d 655; Hunt v. Tague, 205 Md. 369, 109 A.2d 80; Warner v. Maddox, D.C.Va., 68 F.Supp. 27; Fazio v. American Auto. Ins. Co., D.C.La., 136 F.Supp. 184; In re Wilcox' Estate, Ohio App., 137 N.E.2d 301. The above cited cases and our interpretation of 10 Del.C. § 3112, are to......
-
Herschel v. Smith
...of such decedents. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Petro, 189 F.Supp. 651 (S.D.Ind.1960); Fazio v. American Auto Ins. Co., 136 F.Supp. 184 (W.D.La.1955); Brown v. Hughes, 136 F.Supp. 55 (M.D.Pa.1955); Hendrix v. Jenkins, 120 F.Supp. 879 In Parrott v. Whisler, 313 F.2d 245......