National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Decision Date24 April 1952
Docket NumberNo. 11135.,11135.
PartiesNATIONAL MUTUAL INS. CO. OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Cornelius H. Doherty, Washington, D. C., with whom Alfred L. Bennett, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Paul R. Connolly, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Howard Boyd, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.

Before CLARK, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This is a controversy between two insurance companies over which of them shall bear the burden of a loss.

Jennie Emens, the victim of a highway accident, recovered a judgment in New Jersey against James Mench, Jr., the owner and driver of a trailer-truck. Mench was insured under a policy issued to him by the National Mutual Insurance Company, and that company took charge of his defense. The judgment against Mench was never satisfied, and the present litigation arose when Jennie Emens brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Mench's insurer, the National company.

Under the terms of Mench's policy, National's liability did not begin until all other insurance available to the insured had been exhausted — that is, the policy was "excess" insurance. At the time of the accident, Mench's truck was under lease to Elliott Bros. Trucking Company and was being driven by Mench on its business. Appellant National takes the view that insurance was available to Mench under a policy issued to Elliott Bros. by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Believing itself therefore not to be liable under the policy it had issued to Mench, appellant lodged a third-party complaint against Elliott Bros. and the Liberty company. This complaint recited that National "presents" Liberty and Elliott Bros. as "parties to this action upon which recovery may be had by plaintiff," and prayed that in the event of a judgment against National it be given judgment against appellees (third-party defendants) for the amount thereof. It is from the dismissal of this third-party complaint on summary judgment that the present appeal was taken.

Since 1946, Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., has permitted a defendant to move for leave to serve a third-party complaint only upon a person "who is or may be liable to him the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him." (Emphasis added.) No longer is it possible to bring in a person simply because he is or may be liable to the original plaintiff.1 To the extent, then, that the third-party complaint rested on the theory that appellees were liable to Jennie Emens, it was unauthorized by the Rule and properly dismissible.

Appellant suggests, however, that the third-party complaint can be read as relying on the theory that appellees are or may be liable to appellant, defendant below, on the basis of "subrogation." But there is no basis for subrogation in the present case. On principle, the loss has fallen squarely where it should — on Mench, the negligent driver of the vehicle, and on his insurer. They cannot shift it to the innocent employer-lessee, Elliott Bros., or to the latter's insurer, simply because Mench was driving the vehicle on Elliott Bros.' business at the time of the wrongdoing. See Kennedy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 127 Misc. 665, 217 N.Y.S. 261; American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Penn Mutual Indemnity Co., 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 62. Compare George's Radio v. Capital Transit Co., 75 U.S.App. D.C. 187, 126 F.2d 219.

Nothing in the insurance contracts here involved calls for a different result. There might perhaps be subrogation if Mench were covered as an insured by the Elliott Bros. policy, since recourse to Liberty's liability might then be required before resort to the "excess insurance" provided by appellant's contract with Mench. Cf. Builders & Mfrs. Mutual Cas. Co. v. Preferred Automobile Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 118 F.2d 118. But Mench was not an insured under the Elliott Bros. policy. The omnibus coverage clause of that policy does state that "the unqualified word `insured' includes the named insured Elliott Bros. Trucking Company and also includes any person while using an owned automobile or a hired automobile and any person or organization legally responsible for the use thereof * * *." But it goes on to say that "The insurance with respect to any person or organization other than the named insured does not apply: * * * (d) with respect to any hired automobile, to the owner therof or any employee of such owner; * * *."

Mench, as the owner of the vehicle hired by Elliott Bros., was thus excluded from the definition of the term "insured."2 The intent is clear: if an injured party sues the named insured Elliott Bros. and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 5, 1979
    ...the insured or other insurers who clamor for part or all of the coverage." (Emphasis added.)Accord, Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 90 U.S.App.D.C. 362, 196 F.2d 597, Cert. denied, 344 U.S. 819, 73 S.Ct. 15, 97 L.Ed. 638 (1952).37 See pages 134-135 above.38 See note 19 above.3......
  • Armstrong v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • March 27, 2009
    ...an injured party must first secure a judgment against the named insured in the insurance policy." See National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 196 F.2d 597 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 819, 73 S.Ct. 15, 97 L.Ed. 638 (1952); Wellman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 496 F.2d 131 (8th C......
  • Forkwar v. Progressive N. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • December 14, 2012
    ...the endorsement. See, e.g., Wellman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 496 F.2d 131, 138–39 (8th Cir.1974); Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. of D.C. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 196 F.2d 597, 599–600 (D.C.Cir.1952); Del Real v. U.S. Fire Ins. Crum & Forster, 64 F.Supp.2d 958, 964 (E.D.Cal.1998), aff'd188 F.3d 512 (......
  • Pierre v. PROVIDENCE WASH INS.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 12, 2002
    ...the public in the event of an accident involving vehicles owned or operated by commercial motor carriers (see National Mut. Ins. Co. of D.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 196 F2d 597 [DC Cir 1952], cert denied 344 US 819 [1952]). They guarantee that resources will be available to pay a final jud......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT