Norton v. Allstate Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 13 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 24080. |
| Citation | 226 F. Supp. 373 |
| Parties | Roy C. NORTON and Mary Norton, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Frank F. Gazley and Gerald Tuchow, Flat Rock, Mich., for plaintiff.
Garan, Lucow & Miller, Detroit, Mich., for defendants.
Plaintiffs allegedly sustained personal injuries when an unidentified motorist crossed into their traffc lane without warning and forced their automobile into a ditch. The accident occurred on July 16, 1960, while they were travelling in Kentucky. Plaintiffs were insured by defendant. They base their claim upon the following provision of the contract of insurance:
"Allstate will pay all sums which the insured shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury, sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such automobile."
Defendant has moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant contends that, in the event of disagreement as to legal liability or the amount of damages, the only remedy available to the insured is to proceed to arbitration and that suit may not be brought until the process of arbitration has been exhausted. The following provision of the contract is relied upon:
The parties have conferred. They have found that an agreement between them cannot be reached. Defendant has denied all liability. It has not denied the existence of the contract, nor has it attempted to frustrate the process of arbitration. It is the court's understanding that defendant has admitted coverage and is prepared to submit to arbitration the issues "as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled the amount thereof." In Blake v. Farmers' Mut. Lightning Protected Fire Ins. Co., 194 Mich. 589, 161 N.W. 890, the responsibility for initiating the process of arbitration was placed on the insurance company. It failed to give timely notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana Ins. Co. v. Noble, 569A84
...upheld arbitration clauses such as this. Miller v. Allstate Insurance Company, 238 F.Supp. 565 (W.D.Pa.1965); Norton v. Allstate Insurance Company, 226 F.Supp. 373 (E.D.Mich.1964). The cases cited dealt with Pennsylvania and Michigan law respectively. Michigan has a statute, set out in the ......
-
Jeanes v. Arrow Ins. Co.
...Co., 391 F.2d 910 (6th Cir. 1968); Miller v. Allstate Insurance Company, 238 F.Supp. 565 (W.D.Pa.1965); Norton v. Allstate Insurance Co., 226 F.Supp. 373 (E.D.Mich.1964); Bohlmann v. Allstate Insurance Company, 171 So.2d 23 (Fla.Ct.App.1965); Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Loring, 91 ......
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. McGee, Docket No. 8656
...by the Supreme Court for the hearing month of November, 1970, pursuant to § 306 P.A.1964, No. 281.1 See Norton v. Allstate Insurance Company (E.D.Mich., 1964), 226 F.Supp. 373; Van Horn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (C.A. 6, 1968), 391 F.2d 910; and Stagray v. Detroit Au......
-
Riley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 19332.
...Pub.Acts 1961, No. 236. See also Van Horn v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 391 F.2d 910 (6th Cir. 1968); Norton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 226 F.Supp. 373 (E.D.Mich.1964). The fact that an arbitration clause is inserted for the benefit of the insurer does not give it a sinister purpose. In t......