Liberty Mut, Ins. Co. v. Citizens Cas. Co., 1293.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1953
• Docket Number: No. 1293.,1293.
• Citation: 94 A.2d 924
• Parties: LIBERTY MUT, INS. CO. v. CITIZENS CAS. CO.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

Page 924

94 A.2d 924

LIBERTY MUT, INS. CO. v. CITIZENS CAS. CO.

No. 1293.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued January 26, 1953.

Decided February 17, 1953.

Hugh Lynch, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom C. E. Channing, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Denver H. Graham, Washington, D. C., with whom Albert E. Brault, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

One insurance company sued another, demanding reimbursement for one-half of expenses incurred in connection with the investigation and settlement of a personal injury claim under policies written by the two companies. On defendant's motion the trial court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff has brought this appeal.

The complaint alleged that the two insurance companies, plaintiff and defendant, carried policies of indemnity insurance on a man named Pearson which required each company to pay on behalf of Pearson, or on behalf of anyone legally liable for his actions, damages arising out of the use of an automobile owned by Pearson; that the policies required the respective insurers to" defend any suit against Pearson, the two companies retaining the right to make investigation and also, as they might deem expedient, to negotiate and settle any claim or suit; that while Pearson was operating his automobile and while he was allegedly on the business of his employer, The Washington Post, he was involved in a collision which resulted in serious injuries to a Florence Bugbee; that Bugbee made claim upon both insurance companies alleging that Pearson and The Washington Post were liable for her injuries; that after settlement offers were refused Bugbee brought suit against Pearson and The Washington Post; that Pearson defended the suit by his own attorney and Liberty Mutual (the plaintiff) employed attorneys. to defend The Washington Post; that defendant Citizens Casualty took no part in the defense of the case "although it was their duty to promote a defense for The Washington Post Company;" that plaintiff made repeated requests on defendant to share the expense of defending The Washington Post; that defendant received the benefits of the defense of The Post and took advantage of the settlement negotiations which finally disposed of the case; that the suit had been concluded and that plaintiff paid $1899.33 for expenses, including legal fees; that there was an implied agreement that the two insurers would share the expense of defending the suit; that The Washington Post and its insurer Liberty Mutual "were third party beneficiaries of the contract of insurance between the Citizens Casualty Company and Samuel Mark Pearson in that they were entitled to a defense of this suit or the reasonable value thereof;" that defendant refused to pay its part of the expenses of the defense and hence plaintiff demanded $949.67, one-half of the amount abovenamed.

We are somewhat handicapped in our approach to the case...