Parker v. Hardy
| Decision Date | 27 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | 9062 |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAMES D. PARKER, Respondent, v. J. HERSCHEL HARDY, Appellant. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Grant County, SD
#9062—Affirmed
Stover & Beardsley, Watertown, SD
Attorney for Appellant.
Robert D. Jones, Milbank, SD
Attorney for Respondent.
Opinion Filed Feb 27, 1950
Plaintiff’s truck and defendant’s automobile collided on an overpass, and both vehicles were damaged. Plaintiff brought this action to recover his damages amounting to $1,748.38. Defendant denied liability, and counterclaimed for his own damages. Defendant’s answer also states a plea in bar, based upon the allegation that plaintiff carried indemnity insurance which has been paid by the insurer, with the right of subrogation; that the insurer is the real party in interest and is therefore a necessary party to this action. Motion to strike the plea in bar was granted, and defendant appealed.
The parties have stipulated the facts so far as they are material to consideration of the plea in bar by the circuit court and on appeal. It appears from the record that the plaintiff’s damages were $1,748.38 as claimed; that plaintiff was insured in Lloyds, London, against damages resulting from collision or upset to the amount of actual damages less $250 deduction; that the insurer has paid its liability to the plaintiff according to its certificate (policy) and that the policy provides for subrogation to the extent of the payment so made. This is therefore an action brought in the name of the insured against an alleged wrongdoer to enforce such right of subrogation and also to recover the damages sustained by the insured in excess of the payments made to him by the insurer, in the amount of $250. The issue presented is whether the insured is entitled to maintain this action in his own name or whether the insurer is a real party in interest and a necessary party to the action.
It is a well settled rule of law that an insurer is entitled to subrogation, either by contract or in equity for the amount of the indemnity paid. Harrington v. Central States F. Ins. Co., 169 Okl. 278, 36 P2d 738, 96 ALR 859; Flor v. Buck, 189 Minn. 131, 248 NW 743; Shiman Bros. & Co. v. Nebraska Nat. Hotel Co., 143 Neb. 404, 9 NW2d 807. When the indemnity paid by the insurer covers only part of the loss, as in this case, leaving a residue to be made good to the insured by the wrongdoer, the right of action remains in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryan v. Southern Pac. Co., 5846
...Insurance Co. v. Boehm, 170 Kan. 593, 228 P.2d 514; Pringle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 212 S.C. 303, 47 S.E.2d 722; Parker v. Hardy, 73 S.D. 247, 41 N.W.2d 555; Hoosier Condensed Milk Co. v. Doner, 96 Ohio App. 84, 121 N.E.2d 100; and see annotations in 96 A.L.R. 864, 157 A.L.R. If the ......
-
Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
...is controlling. Implicit, in such insurance contracts, are rights of subrogation, whether expressly provided for or not. Parker v. Hardy, 73 S.D. 247, 41 N.W.2d 555; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Phoenix Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 285 U.S. 209, 52 S.Ct. 329, 76 L.Ed. 709; Borserine v. Maryland......
-
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Arlt
...and 1357, pp. 1013, 1015; Annotation 96 A.L.R. pp. 865, 879-881; Annotation 157 A.L.R. pp. 1243, 1251, 1252. In the case of Parker v. Hardy, S.D., 41 N.W.2d 555, 556, the court 'When the indemnity paid by the insurer covers only part of the loss, as in this case, leaving a residue to be mad......
-
Krause v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...and as such he is entitled to a proportionate awad of an attorney's fee. The applicable rule is well stated in the case of Parker v. Hardy, 73 S.D. 247, 41 N.W.2d 555. Therein it is said: 'It is a well settled rule of law that an insurer is entitled to subrogation, either by contract or in ......