Jiffy Foods Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity
| Decision Date | 14 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 69-1386. |
| Citation | 331 F. Supp. 159 |
| Parties | JIFFY FOODS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY, a corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Jack WAGNER et al., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Berkman, Ruslander, Pohl, Lieber & Engel, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchison, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Hartford Accident and Indemnity.
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Jack Wagner.
The instant litigation involves a suit on an insurance contract by an insured (Jiffy Foods, Inc.) against its insurance carrier (Hartford Accident) with the carrier suing its agent (Wagner) for breach of the agent's contract. Hartford's contention is that if it is liable to Jiffy, Wagner is liable to Hartford for a like amount. The contention presently before us relates to the allowable method of proof of damages in the action between Hartford and Wagner.
We will state the facts briefly. On June 5, 1967, a truck owned by Jiffy was involved in an accident in the State of Ohio. The operator of the other vehicle, one Howard, was killed. Howard's estate brought suit against Jiffy in the Federal District Court in Cleveland. Hartford was Jiffy's insurance carrier and under its contract defended the action.
At that point a dispute arose between Jiffy and Hartford with regard to the limits of coverage. Hartford contended that it was obligated only to $200,000.00. Jiffy argued that coverage had been increased before the accident to $500,000.00 and that this increase had been effected through Hartford's agent, Wagner.
Because of this dispute and in order to allow settlement Jiffy and Hartford agreed that Hartford would contribute its $200,000.00 and Jiffy would supply up to $250,000.00 additional without being deemed a volunteer. The Howard litigation ultimately was settled for $400,000.00, Jiffy and Hartford each paying $200,000.00. The instant litigation followed. Jiffy seeks to recover its $200,000.00 contribution from Hartford. Hartford maintains that if the coverage was increased, Wagner exceeded its authority in doing so.
In dealing with the present issue we presume Hartford's liability to Jiffy and Wagner's liability to Hartford. To prove damages against Wagner, Hartford contends that it need only present expert testimony with regard to the reasonableness of the Howard settlement. Wagner's position is that experts cannot be called on this issue and that what must be done is to have the entire Howard law suit tried to the jury, i. e., a trial within a trial. Counsel for Wagner in effect contends that the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fishman v. Brooks
...116, 362 N.W.2d 118 (1985). Cf. Worden v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 347 F.2d 336, 340-341 (10th Cir.1965); Jiffy Foods Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 331 F.Supp. 159, 160 (W.D.Pa.1971). Fishman also contends that admission of evidence concerning the fairness of the settlement was improp......
-
Kelly v. Berlin
...Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643, 487 N.E.2d 1377, 1380-81 (1986). As the Federal District Court in Jiffy Foods Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indem., 331 F.Supp. 159, 160 (W.D.Pa.1971), stated in determining how the reasonableness, or unreasonableness, of a settlement amount would be The i......
-
United States v. Lewis
... ... International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 563, 91 S.Ct. 1697, 29 L.Ed.2d ... ...
-
Fuschetti v. Bierman
...precedent. There appears to be no authority explicitly dealing with these questions. Plaintiff cites Jiffy Foods Corp. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 331 F.Supp. 159 (D.Pa.1971), and Central Cab Co. v. Clarke, 259 Md. 542, 270 A.2d 662 (Ct.App.1970), to sustain the admissibility of expert......