Maryland Casualty Co. v. Tindall
| Decision Date | 28 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 261.,261. |
| Citation | 30 F. Supp. 949 |
| Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. TINDALL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Paul G. Koontz, Harry F. Murphy, and Elliot Norquist, all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Walter A. Raymond and James H. Snyder, both of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Leslie Tindall.
Charles Miller and Fred Bellemere, both of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Marshall's U. S. Auto Supply, Inc.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 400, Title 28 U.S.C., 28 U.S.C.A. § 400. It is provided by this section that "in cases of actual controversy * * * the courts of the United States shall have power upon * * * complaint * * * to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning for such declaration * * *."
The complainant in this case is an insurer and carries a policy of liability insurance upon and on behalf of the corporate defendant. Among other contingencies covered by such policy is one against liability for injury to employees arising from the negligence of the insured.
A claim has been made by an employee, (one of the defendants), and to enforce such claim a suit was filed in a state court and is now pending there. The policy by its terms imposed upon the plaintiff, among others, the obligation to defend suits upon claims within the terms of the policy and to pay within certain limitations the amount recovered.
After suit was filed in the state court the plaintiff in compliance with the terms of its policy undertook the defense of the case, but with reservations as to its further liability in the event of an adverse result in the litigation. While the suit was still pending and undetermined in the state court, and long after entering upon the defense of the case, the plaintiff filed its suit in this court for a declaratory judgment. Its counsel has suggested the propriety of restraining the insured and its co-defendants from further proceeding in the state court until there has been an ascertainment of and adjudication upon the legal relations existing between the plaintiff and the insured and its co-defendants.
Counsel for some of the defendants have moved that the case be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff, having undertaken the defense of the case, and while so engaged, has no right to petition for a declaratory judgment in this court.
1. Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, of the United States provides among other things that "The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate."
The rule further provides that "The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar."
These excerpts from the rule appear appropriate in a discussion of the pending case. It is obvious that where it seems proper to do so the court should entertain an action for declaratory relief even though the complainant may have other adequate remedies. Furthermore, in order that the parties may know their rights, even in pending litigation, the federal courts are enjoined to "order a speedy hearing * * * and may advance" the case "on the calendar."
The history of this case as given by counsel is such that there does not appear to be a pressing obligation to advance the case or to order a speedy hearing. From statements made at a preliminary conference with the attorneys it may be deduced that when the suit was filed in the state court a question was then raised and discussed as to whether the policy was broad enough to cover the facts alleged by the complaining employee. This question did not ripen into an actual controversy, but was adjusted, or, rather, the plaintiff undertook to meet its obligation to defend. In doing so, however, it reserved the right to deny liability in the event of an adverse judgment. Its contract provided that it should defend and pay within the limitations of its policy in case of an adverse judgment. It endeavored to comply with a portion of its obligation, but reserved the right to deny liability on the other part. Such liability may never accrue. This depends upon the results of the litigation. It now asks this court to adjudicate on a question which may become moot, or, rather, never arise, by reason of the results of the state court litigation. Its controversy, therefore, is a speculative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. Burch
...upon the happening of future events. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Graves, 268 App.Div. 809, 48 N.Y.S.2d 618; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Tindall, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 949, affirmed 8 Cir., 117 F.2d 905; American Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Service Oil Co., 4 Cir., 164 F.2d 478. In the last-cited ca......
-
Country Ins. Co. v. Agricultural Development, Inc., 15296
...happening of future events. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Graves, 268 App.Div. 809, 48 N.Y.S.2d 618 [1944]; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Tindall, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 949 [1939], affirmed 8 Cir. [1941], 117 F.2d 905; American Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Service Oil Co., 4 Cir. [1947], 164 F.2d 478. I......
-
Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Crandall Horse Co.
...Nav. Co. v. Central R. of New Jersey, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 362; Dunleer Co. v. Minter Homes Corp., D.C., 33 F.Supp. 242; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Tindall, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 949, affirmed 8 Cir., 117 F.2d 905. Further, Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says: "The existence of anothe......
-
Williams Press, Inc. v. Flavin
...upon the happening of future events. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Graves, 268 App.Div. 809, 48 N.Y.S.2d 618; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Tindall, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 949, affd. 8 Cir., 117 F.2d 905; American Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Service Oil Co., 4 Cir., 164 F.2d In Manhattan Stor. & Warehou......