Landando v. Bluth
Decision Date | 20 November 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 66 C 1479.,66 C 1479. |
Parties | Joan LANDANDO and Joseph Landando, Plaintiffs, v. Raymond BLUTH, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
William J. McKenna, James Kirk Perrin, of McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Haskell, Chicago, Ill., for Security Ins. Co.
Thomas McGarry, St. Louis, Mo., for Raymond Bluth.
This is an action for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, defendant Bluth was insured under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Security Insurance Company. This policy covered Mr. Bluth in the maximum amount of $25,000.00 for personal injuries sustained in one occurrence by one person. The policy also included a promise by Security to provide legal defense for Mr. Bluth as to claims payable under the terms of the policy.
With respect to its obligation under the policy to defend Mr. Bluth against claims presented in this suit, Security has moved to deposit its draft in the amount of $25,000.00 with this court on behalf of the defendant, to be applied to the claims of Joan Landando, thereby exhausting the monetary limit of Security's insurance of defendant Bluth as to claims made as a result of her injuries. Security also seeks an order of this court relieving it of any further obligation to defend Raymond Bluth against any claims of Joan Landando for personal injuries.
The insurance company contends that the opinion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Denham v. La Salle-Madison Hotel Company, 168 F.2d 576 (7th Cir.1948), requires that Security's motion be granted. Defendant Bluth disputes the wisdom of Denham and cites numerous cases to support his position, but seems to concur in Security's view of what the Denham decision would dictate in this case.
The essential thrust of Denham is plainly that a court should consider the specific language in the particular contract at issue. It is also clear that in Denham ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conway v. Country Cas. Ins. Co.
...159 N.J.Super. 340, 387 A.2d 1259; Ursprung v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (Ct.App.Ky.1973), 497 S.W.2d 726; Landando v. Bluth (N.D.Ill.1968), 292 F.Supp. 975; Simmons v. Jeffords (E.D.Pa.1966), 260 F.Supp. 641. Country Casualty's reliance on Denham v. La Salle-Madison Hotel Co. (7th Ci......
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Federal Ins. Co.
...339 S.E.2d 660, 661 (1986) (quoting Liberty Ins. Co. v. Mead Corp., 219 Ga. 6, 131 S.E.2d 534, 535 (1963)); see Landando v. Bluth, 292 F.Supp. 975, 976 (N.D.Ill.E.D.1968) ("Each case involving a promise to defend must be considered independently on the basis of the particular language in th......
-
Conway v. Country Cas. Ins. Co.
...not believe the difference in policy language warranted a departure from the Denham holding, such was not the case in Landando v. Bluth (N.D.Ill.1968), 292 F.Supp. 975, which is cited to us by the instant plaintiff. In Landando, defendant Bluth was insured under an automobile liability insu......
-
Gross v. Lloyds of London Ins. Co.
...to defend must be considered independently on the basis of the particular language in the contract at issue." Landando v. Bluth, 292 F.Supp. 975, 976 (N.D.Ill.E.D.1968). When construing language covering an obligation such as the insurer's duty to defend the insured, courts must look to the......