Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., Matter of, No. 75--1206
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ROSENN and GARTH; GARTH |
| Citation | 528 F.2d 710 |
| Parties | In the Matter of GOOD DEAL SUPERMARKETS, INC., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, et al., Bankrupts. Joseph R. McMAHON, ESQ., as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., et al., Bankrupts, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and Titan Supermarket Associates, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1206 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1975 |
Page 710
of the State of
New Jersey, et al., Bankrupts. Joseph R. McMAHON, ESQ., as
Trustee in Bankruptcy of Good Deal Supermarkets,
Inc., et al., Bankrupts, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and Titan Supermarket
Associates, Defendants-Appellees.
Third Circuit.
Decided Dec. 31, 1975.
Page 711
Ravin & Ravin, Newark, N.J., for plaintiff-appellant; William S. Katchen, Mitchel R. Lubitz, Newark, N.J., of counsel.
McElroy, Connell, Foley & Geiser, Newark, N.J., for defendant-appellee, Titan Supermarket Associates; Theodore W. Geiser, Kevin J. Coakley, Newark, N.J., of counsel.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ROSENN and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
GARTH, Circuit Judge.
This appeal, brought by the Trustee in Bankruptcy (Trustee) of a tenant, would have required us to determine whether insurance proceeds payable as a result of fire damage to the leased premises should be paid to the owner/landlord or to the tenant's Trustee in Bankruptcy. The district court's order filed on December 30, 1974 granted summary judgment in favor of the owner/landlord and denied summary judgment to the Trustee. However, neither that order nor any other order disposed of the issues involving the insurance company which had disclaimed liability. We thus have no appealable order and are required to dismiss the Trustee's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction without reaching the merits of the controversy.
I.
Titan Supermarket Associates (Titan), a New York real estate partnership, owned property in Chatham, New Jersey, which was leased to Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc. (Good Deal).
On December 22, 1972 Great American Insurance Co. (Great American) issued a builder's risk policy of insurance on the demised premises. This policy named Good Deal but not Titan as loss payee.
The leased premises were destroyed by fire on May 13, 1973. Good Deal did not repair the premises or reopen its supermarket. One month after the fire, on June 14, 1973, Good Deal filed a Petition for Arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. In October of 1973 Good Deal was adjudicated a bankrupt. Both the Trustee and Titan claimed the insurance proceeds.
Great American has disclaimed liability under its policy as to both the Trustee and Titan. As to the Trustee, numerous defenses, including alleged fraud by Good Deal, have been raised. As to Titan, Great American has asserted that Titan was not a party to the policy.
The Trustee thereupon instituted the present action in the Bankruptcy Court against Titan and Great American (among other defendants) seeking recovery of the proceeds of the policy and a determination of the Trustee's rights to the proceeds. The action was transferred to the district court for a plenary trial on all issues.
Titan answered and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bachowski v. Usery, No. 76-1802
...L.Ed.2d 199 (1964); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 324, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); In re Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., 528 F.2d 710 (3d Cir. 1975); United States v. Estate of Pearce, 498 F.2d 847, 849 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc); 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice P 11 0/06 (2d e......
-
Brace v. O'Neill, No. 76-2207
...In re Grand Jury Proceedings (U.S. Steel Clairton Works), 525 F.2d 151, 154-55 (3d Cir. 1975); see In re Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., 528 F.2d 710, 712 (3d Cir. 1975). The policy underlying this rule is the prevention of "the debilitating effect on judicial administration caused by pieceme......
-
Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., No. 90-5521
...was correct because proper certification is an essential prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction. Matter of Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., 528 F.2d 710, 712 (3rd Cir.1975). Without Rule 54(b) certification, this court would have no appellate jurisdiction over Gloucester Township, which remai......
-
Doeblers' Pennsylvania Hybrids, Inc. v. Doebler, No. 04-3848.
...§ 1291 because the District Court did not issue a final judgment pending resolution of damages issues. In Re Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., 528 F.2d 710, 712 (3d Cir.1975). We nevertheless have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which states: "the courts of appeals shall ha......
-
Bachowski v. Usery, No. 76-1802
...L.Ed.2d 199 (1964); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 324, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); In re Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., 528 F.2d 710 (3d Cir. 1975); United States v. Estate of Pearce, 498 F.2d 847, 849 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc); 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice P 11 0/06 (2d e......
-
Brace v. O'Neill, No. 76-2207
...In re Grand Jury Proceedings (U.S. Steel Clairton Works), 525 F.2d 151, 154-55 (3d Cir. 1975); see In re Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., 528 F.2d 710, 712 (3d Cir. 1975). The policy underlying this rule is the prevention of "the debilitating effect on judicial administration caused by pieceme......
-
Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., No. 90-5521
...was correct because proper certification is an essential prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction. Matter of Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., 528 F.2d 710, 712 (3rd Cir.1975). Without Rule 54(b) certification, this court would have no appellate jurisdiction over Gloucester Township, which remai......
-
Doeblers' Pennsylvania Hybrids, Inc. v. Doebler, No. 04-3848.
...§ 1291 because the District Court did not issue a final judgment pending resolution of damages issues. In Re Good Deal Supermarkets, Inc., 528 F.2d 710, 712 (3d Cir.1975). We nevertheless have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which states: "the courts of appeals shall ha......