Insurance Co. of North America v. United States

Decision Date04 March 1983
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 77-2621.
Citation561 F. Supp. 106
PartiesINSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Norman Carroll and William Carroll, Administrators of the Estate of Morris Carroll, Deceased, and Pershing & Co., Inc., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Bernard Chanin, Steven B. King, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Malcolm H. Waldron, Jr., Robert Silverman, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants Norman and William Carroll.

Paul J. Donnelly, Herbert G. Keene, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants Pershing & Co., Inc. and U.S.A.

William McGettigan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for U.S.A.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

SHAPIRO, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Insurance Company of North America, (INA), as assignee and subrogee of Cannon & Company, Inc. (CANNON), brings this action against the United States, Norman Carroll and William Carroll, Administrators of the Estate of Morris Carroll, deceased (CARROLL) and Pershing & Co., Inc. (PERSHING). Plaintiff sues the United States of America under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) as a contract action and alternatively under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, et seq. Claims against Carroll, from whom Cannon purchased the bonds, are based on §§ 27 and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78aa, 78j(b) and Rule 10(b)(5) of the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder; plaintiff has also brought pendent state claims of common law fraud and deceit, and further asks this court to issue a declaratory judgment of the rights of INA and Carroll in a proceeding pending in state court. Claims against Pershing are brought pursuant to this court's diversity jurisdiction based on wrongful transfer of the bonds under U.C.C. § 8-3151 and the common law tort of conversion.

I. Findings of Fact

1. Plaintiff, INA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business at 1600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Defendant Pershing is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 120 Broadway, New York, New York. Pershing is engaged in the securities brokerage business and is a regular member organization of, and transacts business on and through, the Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington Stock Exchange (PBW) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as well as the New York, American and other stock exchanges.

2. At the time of the transactions in suit, Cannon, INA's insured, was a securities broker-dealer with offices in Flourtown, Pennsylvania. Cannon was a member of the PBW and of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) but not of the New York or American Stock Exchanges.

3. Defendants Norman and William Carroll are administrators of the Estate of Morris Carroll, deceased. Between April and August 1971, Morris Carroll delivered to Cannon bonds with a face value of $172,000.00 for Cannon to sell on his behalf. All but $27,000.00 of those bonds had been stolen from Pershing.

4. On various dates between August 1971 and March 1972 Cannon delivered these bonds to the FBI for investigation of their theft. On November 8, 1974, the FBI delivered the bonds to Pershing rather than to Cannon.

5. INA was Cannon's insurer and reimbursed Cannon for its loss under the terms of its policy. At the time INA indemnified Cannon the latter assigned to INA all of its interest in the bonds and in receipts signed by the FBI when it took possession of the bonds. Cannon so advised the FBI.

6. INA, as the subrogee of Cannon, brought this suit against Pershing to recover the value of the bonds and against the personal representatives of Morris Carroll to recover the $91,610.33 paid to Carroll in connection with the sale of some of the bonds and against the United States for breach of contract as bailee of the bonds, for negligence and conversion of the bonds. INA claims interest and costs of suit in damages.

7. Dominick Paciolla was a Cannon account executive; he had been in the securities business since 1968 and employed by Cannon since 1970.

8. Paciolla met Samuel Cartier (CARTIER) in early 1971. Cartier held himself out as a financial consultant who specialized in corporate financing, mergers, and acquisitions. Cartier gave Paciolla his business card stating an address of his financial consulting office in the Land Title Building, Broad and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a business telephone number.

9. Paciolla had several conversations with Cartier during the two or three months preceding April 1971.

10. Paciolla asked Cartier to use his services as a securities salesman.

11. Cartier inquired if Paciolla would handle sales for an individual for whom he was the financial consultant and who owned bearer bonds he desired to sell. This individual was Morris Carroll.

12. Cartier delivered $44,000.00 of Gulf & Western bearer bonds to Paciolla on April 19, 1971 at a prearranged meeting place on a street corner in Philadelphia.

13. At this time Cartier provided Cannon with Carroll's name, an address, telephone number, and social security number, and advised that Carroll was retired, and had a net worth approximating $100,000.00 and Cartier gave the First Pennsylvania Bank as a bank reference. The next day, April 20, 1971, Paciolla entered the information provided on the New Account form employed by Cannon.

14. John C. Williams, President of Cannon, a 25-year veteran of the securities industry, reviewed the form, satisfied himself that all information required was present, and countersigned the card on April 21, 1971. In the course of his normal duties, Williams reviewed all daily trades and all customer monthly statements including the Carroll trades and statements and found nothing suspicious about the Morris Carroll account.

15. It was normal Cannon practice for Mr. Williams' secretary to telephone bank references given by a customer to see if the bank would confirm the account and to check the address provided. However, in 1971 it was the practice of First Pennsylvania not to reveal such information. The secretary would report only contradictory information to Williams. She would not report a refusal to give information on an account and did not make any report on the Carroll account. She did not report any problem with the address, although it was later found to be incorrect. Williams had no recollection whether Cannon ran a credit check on Carroll, as was the periodic practice with regard to every fifth or sixth account of "size".

16. On April 20, 1971, Paciolla presented the first group of Gulf & Western bonds for sale. Each of the bonds received was payable to order of bearer, was complete and regular on its face and contained no overdue interest coupons. None of the bonds was indorsed "for collection", "for surrender", or any other purpose not involving transfer. Nor did any of the bonds contain any statement or legend reflecting that they were the property of anyone other than Carroll.

17. Prior to executing the sale, Paciolla, together with Harry Byerly, Vice-President and Cashier at Cannon, examined accumulated lists of lost/stolen securities which Cannon had. Byerly and Paciolla compared serial numbers of the bonds presented for sale against serial numbers designated on the lists of lost and stolen securities. None of the bond serial numbers were listed on any of the lost security flyers in Cannon's possession on April 20, 1971.

18. Cannon sold the bonds for Carroll's account at the market price on April 20, 1971. On the following day, Cartier requested payment of the proceeds to Carroll (a "prepayment"). Settlement is ordinarily in five business days. Prepayments were requested by Cannon customers only three or four times per month although there were 7,000 to 8,000 trades per year. So long as an appropriate reason for a request was made and the bonds had been delivered, cash settlement was permitted after deduction of an appropriate interest charge. No one could recall the reason given for this request.

19. Approximately three weeks later, Cartier called Paciolla and advised that Carroll desired to sell more of the same Gulf & Western bond issue.

20. On May 12, 1971 Paciolla again met Cartier outside the office and received $25,000.00 of Gulf & Western bonds, for which he wrote "Received 25 Gulf & Western 5¼ 1987" on the back of his business card which he gave to Cartier. Each of these bonds was also complete and regular on its face, payable to the order of the bearer, with no overdue interest coupons. None of the bonds was indorsed "for collection", "for surrender" or for any other purpose not involving transfer. Nor did any bond contain any statement or legend reflecting that it was the property of anyone other than Carroll. These bonds were sold on May 13, 1971, after Harry Byerly, Operations Manager at Cannon, checked them against the lost/stolen lists maintained by Cannon.

21. Paciolla received additional Gulf & Western bonds from Cartier which were sold on May 14, 1971 ($18,000.00) and May 17, 1971 ($6,000.00). No one at Cannon checked these bonds against the lost/stolen lists prior to their sale.

22. The net proceeds of sale were paid to Carroll for the second, third, and fourth trades.

23. The Gulf & Western bonds sold in these trades were delivered after the trade date but before the settlement date.

24. The Gulf & Western bonds delivered to Paciolla on April 19 were in Cannon's office on April 20, 1971, at the time of the initial trade.

25. On May 27, 1971, Cannon sold $20,000.00 of Yonkers Electric Power & Light bonds on behalf of the Carroll account and remitted the proceeds to Carroll. No one at Cannon checked the lost/stolen lists prior to this sale.

26. Pershing & Company maintained an inventory of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Blassingame v. Secretary of Navy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 14 November 1985
    ...the Court of Claims is empowered to hear his case. Sprecher v. Graber, 716 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1983); Insurance Company of North America v. United States, 561 F.Supp. 106, 117 (E.D.Pa.1983). 2. The Administrative Procedures Act For the purposes of this claim, the APA will not confer subject m......
  • Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J. v. Philip Morris
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 19 September 2000
    ...by Empire, but rather on when the injuries were discovered or first discoverable by each Plan member. See Insurance Co. of N.Am. v. United States, 561 F.Supp. 106, 119 (E.D.Pa.1983); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 260 (2d Cir.1999) (insurer-subrogee's claims are "subje......
  • First Atlantic Leasing Corp. v. Tracey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 1 June 1990
    ...because the suit was filed prematurely and thus, there was no "ripe" case or controversy. See, e.g., Insurance Co. of N. America v. United States, 561 F.Supp. 106, 117-118 (E.D.Pa. 1983) ("the suit against the US was commenced prematurely and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction ove......
  • Vigilant Ins. Co. of America v. Housing Authority of City of El Paso, Tex.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 1 November 1995
    ...when Drexel first became aware that the bonds were stolen (Cruden v. Bank of N.Y., 957 F.2d 961 [2d Cir.1992]; Insurance Co. v. United States, 561 F.Supp. 106 [E.D.Pa.1983]; Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 123 F.Supp. 44, affd. 228 F.2d 563 [2d Cir.1955]. That was Supreme Court's view ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT