Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 8172.,8172. |
| Citation | 111 F.2d 214 |
| Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. PACIFIC COAL & OIL CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Parker Fulton, of Cleveland, Ohio, (Bushnell, Burgess, Fulton & Chandler, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
E. J. Thobaben, of Cleveland, Ohio, (G. E. Romano and E. J. Thobaben, both of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellees.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
The sole question here is whether the District Court erred in sustaining a demurrer to appellant's petition for a declaratory judgment filed under the provisions of Section 400, Title 28 U.S.C., 28 U.S.C.A. § 400.
Appellant issued a liability policy to the Pacific Coal & Oil Company under which it was obligated to defend all actions brought against the assured and, within the limitations of the policy, to pay all sums for which the assured should be liable for property damage or bodily injuries caused by automobiles hired by the assured. While the policy was in effect, appellee Orteca, driving his automobile, collided with a 1931 Ford truck operated by an employee of the Coal Company. Orteca brought suit against the Coal Company in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, but this action has not proceeded to judgment. The case is thus differentiated from Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Ryan, 6 Cir., 109 F.2d 690.
Appellant brought the instant action in the District Court against the assured and Orteca, asking that the court determine appellant's obligation under the policy and decide whether it is obligated to defend the pending action in the state court. The petition alleged that the Coal Company claims to have sold the 1931 Ford truck to its employee who was operating it at the time of the accident, the Coal Company retaining title thereto as security for the payment of the purchase price. If the truck was owned by the company, and was not a hired automobile, appellant claims to have no obligation under the policy. Orteca demurred to the petition in the District Court for the reason that no cause of action against him is stated, and that he is not a necessary or proper party to the action, and the demurrer was sustained.
The determinative factor is whether a controversy exists between Orteca and appellant.
We think that the judgment of the District Court must be affirmed, upon the ground that no cause of action was stated against Orteca. The controversy which gives...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland Casualty Co v. Pacific Coal Oil Co
...of action against him. The District Court sustained his demurrer and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 6 Cir., 111 F.2d 214. We granted certiorari on October 14, 1940, 311 U.S. 625, 61 S.Ct. 25, 85 L.Ed. —-, to resolve the conflict with ......
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boyle Const. Co.
...and the nature of that controversy appears from an examination of the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals rendered in the case. 6 Cir., 111 F.2d 214. The company was denying that its policy covered the truck which caused claimant's injury; and this controversy was entirely separate and ......
-
Elbert v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co.
...that it did not "state a cause of action against him", which was sustained by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 111 F.2d 214. In disposing of the matter, the Supreme Court said: "The question is whether petitioner's allegations are sufficient to entitle it to the decla......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. O'Connor-Regenwether Post # 3633, Veterans of Foreign Wars, CONNOR-REGENWETHER
...... In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 1941, 312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 S.Ct. ......