Long v. Union Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1931 |
| Citation | 178 N.E. 737,277 Mass. 428 |
| Parties | LONG v. UNION INDEMNITY CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; P. M. Keating, Judge.
Action by Oscar Long against the Union Indemnity Company. Demurrer of defendant was sustained and case reported.
Judgment ordered for defendant.
H. E. Cohen, of Boston, for plaintiff.
P. D. Turner, of Boston, for defendant.
The declaration in this action alleged that the defendant undertook ‘to indemnify the plaintiff against loss by reason of the liability to pay damages to others for bodily injuries sustained during the year 1927 by any person, arising out of the ownership and operation, maintenance, control or use upon the ways of this Commonwealth of a motor vehicle, owned by the plaintiff’; that the plaintiff was involved in a collision in which one McDougall claimed to have been injured; that plaintiff reported the occurrence to the defendant which undertook to care for the claim and any liability in connection therewith pursuant to its contract ‘to defend any action brought or at the option of the company to settle in the name and on behalf of the plaintiff any claims, suits, or other legal proceedings, alleging injuries and demanding damages on account thereof’; that, having been sued in an action returnable in Norfolk county, he handed the summons served upon him to the defendant and the defendant turned the matter over to attorneys of its selection to be handled in the name and on behalf of the plaintiff. It further alleged that ‘by consent of the attorneys nominated by this defendant to represent this plaintiff and who purported to act under their oath of office as attorneys at law of this Court promoting the interests of this plaintiff’ judgment was rendered against the plaintiff as defendant in the action; but that the judgment was not by his consent, on the contrary was against his expressed wishes, against his interest and in violation of the obligation owed to him by the defendant and its attorneys. It alleged further that the plaintiff brought suit against McDougall in the county of Suffolk, claiming damage to his person and property; that at trial therein the presiding justice allowed McDougall by amendment to set forth as an answer that she had secured judgment in Norfolk county in the action there brought by her based on a claim that the plaintiff here had been negligent in the aforesaid collision; that after verdict for the plaintiff the judge set the verdict aside under leave reserved pursuant to statute, and the Supreme Judicial Court sustained the judge holding the judgment in Norfolk county to be conclusive and binding upon this plaintiff; that the defendant was informed of the proceedings in the action in Suffolk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co.
...of a conflict between the two." The only argument put forward in support of this request is that it "is taken from Long v. Indemnity Co., 1931, 277 Mass. 428, 178 N.E. 737, 79 A. L.R. 1116, which in turn quotes the statement from several other states. Its substance ran through the previous ......
-
W. O. Johnson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co
... ... differently laid to meet possible scope and varying phases of ... testimony, for as long as plaintiff adheres to contract or ... injury originally declared upon, alteration of modes in ... ...
-
Home Indem. Ins. Co. v. Merchants Distributors, Inc.
...thereunder may take place even where there is a conflict of interest between the insured and the insurer. See Long v. Union Indem. Co., 277 Mass. 428, 430, 178 N.E. 737 (1931); Abrams v. Factory Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 298 Mass. at 143-145, 10 N.E.2d 82. The fraud, negligence and good faith st......
-
Abrams v. Factory Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.
...83 N.E. 407. Or it may consent to a judgment, although a subsequent action by the insured may be prejudiced. Long v. Union Indemnity Co., 277 Mass. 428, 178 N.E. 737, 79 A.L.R. 1116. (See now, however, G. L. [Ter.Ed.] c. 231, § 140A, as inserted by St. 1932, c. 130, § 1.) In short the insur......
-
CHAPTER § 5.09 When a Claim Arises: Handling of Claims Negotiations
...DeGraw v. State Sec. Ins. Co., 351 N.E.2d 302 (Ill. App. 1976); Bennett v. Conrady, 305 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1957); Long v. Union Indem. Co., 178 N.E. 737 (Mass. 1931); Thompson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 505 P.2d 423 (Mont. 1972), overruled by Watters v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., 3 P.3d 626 ......