Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Doctor
| Decision Date | 26 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 47675 |
| Citation | 161 N.E.2d 867,23 Ill.App.2d 225 |
| Parties | NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a corporation, Appellee, v. Martin R. DOCTOR, Defendant below, General Fire and Casualty Company, a corporation, Defendant below, Appellant, Checker Taxi Company, a corporation, Third Party Defendant, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jesmer & Harris, Chicago, Harvey Shapiro, Chicago, of counsel, for appellant.
John J. Treacy, Chicago, for appellee.
Plaintiff, Northern Insurance Company of New York (herein called Northern) obtained a judgment for $586.79 against defendants General Fire and Casualty Company (herein called General) and Checker Taxi Company (herein called Checker). The case grew out of a collision between the automobile of one Doctor and a Checker taxicab on August 21, 1950. Doctor was insured with Northern against damages to his automobile. Checker was insured with General. Doctor was a defendant below, but a verdict was directed in his favor and as there is no complaint against that ruling, it is not necessary to give it any consideration here.
The case was tried on the third amended complaint filed by Northern, and in this case it relies entirely on the second of three counts. That count is directed against General only and charges that General wilfully and fraudulently induced Doctor to violate his contract with plaintiff by executing a release which barred plaintiff's right of subrogation against Checker, to the damage of plaintiff. A verdict was directed on that count in favor of Northern and against General. The jury, however, in rendering its verdict as directed also included Checker, and for some unexplained reason Checker continued to be included throughout the appeal, although plaintiff disclaims any intention to hold Checker. The judgment against Checker will therefore be reversed and we will consider only whether a case was made against General. General offered no testimony on its own account, and hence the sole question is whether or not the evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff made a case.
This testimony shows that one Hannon, an adjuster acting for Northern, called on one O'Neal, an adjuster for General, and was advised by O'Neal that there was no question of liability, that is, the liability of Checker, General's insured. After Northern had received a bill for damages to the automobile in the amount of $611.76, Hannon again spoke to O'Neal, who asked him to wait another thirty days or so. In that interval, General had contacted Doctor and obtained a general release. Doctor testified in substance that he told General's agent that loss of the use of his car would cause him considerable damage; that he had to do some traveling of a business nature; and he estimated his loss at $120. To that he added $25, which is the deductible amount in the Northern policy, making the total amount of $145 not covered by his policy with Northern. He testified that he told the adjuster a number of times that he had insurance, and the adjuster assured him that he was merely being reimbursed for loss of the use of his car; that this did not cover any other damages and hence he could make the settlement without giving up his right to collect the insurance from Northern for damages to his car. Accordingly, Doctor took the $145 and executed a general release.
The question therefore directly presented to us is whether this constitutes fraudulent inducement to the defendant Doctor to violate his contract with Northern. The essential elements of this tort are: (1) defendant's knowledge of the existing contract; (2) the inducement; (3) the subsequent breach by the third person; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. Doremus v. Hennessy, 176 Ill. 608, 52 N.E. 924, 54 N.E. 524, 43 L.R.A. 797, 802; Rule Milk Ass'n v. Kraft Foods Co., 8 Ill.App.2d 102, 130 N.E.2d 765; Bloom v. Bohemians, Inc., 223 Ill.App. 269; Harper, Interference with Contractual Relations, 47 N.W.U.L.Rev. 873 (1953). The inducement need not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v. Kunard
...222, 229, 235 N.E.2d 346 (Ill.App. 1968) modified 41 Ill.2d 468, 244 N.E.2d 809 (Ill.1969) (citing Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Doctor, 23 Ill.App.2d 225, 161 N.E.2d 867 (Ill.App.1959)). Therefore, the Court finds Mr. Hammond's assertion that a pendent claim exists that would justify this C......
-
Herman v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co.
...206 Ill. 493, 69 N.E. 526; Doremus v. Hennessy, 176 Ill. 608, 52 N.E. 924, 54 N.E. 524, 43 L.R.A. 797; Northern Insurance Co. of New York v. Doctor, 23 Ill.App.2d 225, 161 N.E.2d 867.) Moreover, in none of the cases cited by plaintiffs, wherein actions for malicious interference with a cont......
-
Magnaflux Corporation v. Foerster
...contract to breach it; (3) subsequent breach by one of the parties; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. See Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Doctor, 23 Ill.App.2d 225, 161 N.E.2d 867, and Hardy v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 19 Ill.App.2d 75, 153 N.E.2d To sustain either the claim for breach ......
-
Waldinger v. Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, Inc., 80-2008.
...State Street Bank and Trust Co., 82 Ill.App.3d 83, 85, 37 Ill. Dec. 263, 401 N.E.2d 1356 (1980); Northern Insurance Co. of New York v. Doctor, 23 Ill.App.2d 225, 228, 161 N.E.2d 867 (1959); Republic Gear Company v. Borg-Warner Corporation, 406 F.2d 57, 61 (7th The elements which establish a......