Maryland Casualty Company v. Burley, 9815.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 9815.,9815. |
| Citation | 345 F.2d 138 |
| Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Scott Nelson BURLEY, Jr., Donald Pete Mosteller and National Indemnity Company, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Wm. Rosenberger, Jr., Lynchburg, Va., for appellant.
Henry M. Sackett, Jr., Lynchburg, Va. (Williams, Robertson & Sackett, Lynchburg, Va., on brief) for appellee National Indemnity Co.
Before SOBELOFF and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges, and STANLEY, District Judge.
This proceeding was instituted to obtain a judgment declaring which of two insurance companies is obligated to assume the burden of defense and liability for any judgment in respect of suits growing out of damages sustained in an automobile accident involving Scott Burley, Jr.
On August 10, 1963, Burley, while operating with consent an automobile owned by Brockman Chevrolet, Inc., collided in Virginia with a car driven by Donald Mosteller. Suit was brought against Burley by the mother and next friend of Donald Mosteller for personal injuries suffered by him in the accident. Maryland Casualty Company, the insurer of Brockman, brought this declaratory judgment action to determine whether it, or National Indemnity Company, is obligated to defend the suit. National is the insurer of the members of the Burley household.
In the meantime, as often happens in such situations, neither insurance company was willing to assume the defense of the action for damages. Burley was compelled to advance the cost of defending the suit, and although the injured plaintiff has recovered judgment the insurers decline payment to him while they litigate their dispute in the federal courts.
Maryland issued a Garage Liability insurance policy to Brockman in which it agreed to pay all personal injury claims arising out of the use of any automobile owned by Brockman for the purpose of garage operations. An endorsement attached to the policy provides that the policy does not insure any driver, unless a member of a specified class,1 who has other valid and collectible automobile liability insurance available to him. If it were not for this limiting endorsement the policy's coverage would clearly extend to Burley in an amount sufficient to cover all liabilities arising from the above accident.
This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in a somewhat analogous, but perhaps distinguishable, case to require that the "same coverage" be extended to any authorized person driving the insured car as is extended to the named insured. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Indemnity Ins. Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town Crier, Inc. v. Hume
...Insureds' alleged misconduct occurred in Virginia, and the third party state suit was filed in Virginia. See, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Burley, 345 F.2d 138, 139 (4th Cir.1965) (Virginia law applied where insurance policies issued and incident occurred there); American & Foreign Ins. Co. v. ......
-
Yamaguchi v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS., Civ. No. 79-0083.
...of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 87 S.Ct. 1776, 18 L.Ed.2d 886 (1967). A similar situation was presented to the court in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Burley, 345 F.2d 138 (4th Cir. 1965). In that case, a declaratory judgment action brought by two liability insurers against their insured, the issue was t......
-
Bowling v. City of Roanoke
...see King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America, 333 U.S. 153, 68 S.Ct. 488, 92 L.Ed. 608 (1948); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Burley, 345 F.2d 138 (4th Cir.1965), Gorham would be entitled to some weight in deciding whether the operation and maintenance of a municipal airport is a p......
-
National Bank of Washington v. Pearson
...district court's grant of summary judgment for NBW on the issue of Pearson's liability under the guaranty. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Burley, 345 F.2d 138, 139-40 (4 Cir.1965) (joining district court in deferring to state trial court's interpretation of state law in absence of ruling by s......