King v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 26 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2074. |
| Citation | 274 F. Supp. 824 |
| Parties | Thomas KING, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Edith BROWN, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
J. Sam Wood and Shaw, Jones & Shaw, Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiff.
Dobbs, Pryor & Shaver, Fort Smith, Ark., for third party plaintiff.
Garner & Parker, Fort Smith, Ark., for third party defendant.
This suit was instituted by Thomas King, an alleged citizen of Fort Smith, Arkansas, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a corporation allegedly organized and having its principal place of business in a state other than Arkansas; and alleging that State Farm had issued an insurance policy to the plaintiff providing, among other things, uninsured motorist coverage. A copy of the policy has been furnished the court, and its issuance, its terms, and that it was in force at the material times is not in dispute. King's complaint further alleges that on November 17, 1966, he was struck by an automobile driven by Edith Brown, the third party defendant, and that Edith Brown was negligent, and resulted in serious injury to him, and further alleges that Edith Brown is an uninsured motorist within the terms of the policy. The plaintiff seeks to recover $10,000, the maximum amount payable under the policy, together with a 12% penalty and attorney's fee.
State Farm's answer admits that the policy was issued, and that it contains the uninsured motorist provisions, and admits that an accident occurred on November 17, 1966; denying all other material allegations.
At the same time, State Farm Mutual, upon leave of the court, filed a third party complaint against Edith Brown alleging that Edith Brown is a citizen of Oklahoma, and that King and State Farm are neither citizens of Oklahoma. The third party complaint alleges the substance of the provisions of the uninsured motorist coverage and that the policy also extends coverage to Thomas King for all damages that he shall become legally obligated to pay for bodily injuries or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance and use of the automobile involved, and that because of the conflicting claims of Edith Brown as to the liability of Thomas King, and King's claim that Edith Brown's negligence was the cause of the accident, State Farm might be subjected to a double or multiple liability, and for that reason is entitled to implead Edith Brown. The prayer of State Farm against Edith Brown is that in the event Edith Brown is found to be liable as a result of negligence, that State Farm have judgment against her for whatever amount may be found to be due King, and for all other relief to which it may be entitled.
The plaintiff has moved to strike the third party complaint, and the third party defendant has moved to dismiss it on the ground that it does not state a cause of action.
The Arkansas Statutes making uninsured motorist coverage compulsory except where specifically rejected, provides in Section 66-4006 of Arkansas Stats. Annotated:
"In the event of payment to any person under the coverage required by this section and subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, the insurer making such payment shall, to the extent thereof, be entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment resulting from the exercise of any rights of recovery of such person against any person or organization legally responsible for the bodily injury for which such payment is made, including the proceeds recoverable from the assets of an insolvent insurer."
The policy provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zahn v. International Paper Company
...third party defendants properly impleaded under Rule 14 need not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, King v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 274 F.Supp. 824 (W.D.Ark. 1967); Schinella v. Iron Workers Union Local 361, 149 F.Supp. 5 (E.D.N.Y.1957), and the rule that, once federal jurisdi......
-
Atlantic Aviation Corporation v. Estate of Costas
...1964, 337 F. 2d 486. The unfortunate decision in Stahl v. Ohio River Co., 3rd Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 52 (contrast King v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., W.D.Ark.1967, 274 F.Supp. 824) might suggest that there cannot be an assertion of a claimover for contribution (or, impliedly, for indemnificati......
-
Vaught v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
...vehicle's operator. The defendant would have the same rights against the operator as its insured had. Cf., King v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 274 F.Supp. 824 (W.D.Ark.1967). The defendant's final contention is that the Arkansas Supreme Court has recognized the right of an insurer ......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Solem
...federal courts have regularly permitted the insurer to implead that party as a third-party defendant. See, King v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (W.D.Ark.1967), 274 F.Supp. 824; St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. United States Lines Co. (2d Cir. 1958), 258 F.2d 374, cert. den. 359 U.......