Patterson v. United States, Civ. A. No. 4210
Decision Date | 10 April 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4210,4211. |
Citation | 233 F. Supp. 447 |
Parties | H. L. PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES of America et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. Vickie D. PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES of America et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Leon W. Davis, Jr., J. H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., and for third-party plaintiff.
Alvin O. Moore, of Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, Chattanooga, Tenn., for third-party defendant.
The above styled cases are before the Court upon motions of the defendant, United States of America, to dismiss and motions of the third-party defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, to dismiss. These actions are brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. Both the United States and its employee, John Sullivan, are named as parties defendant to the original action. A third-party action was filed by the United States against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company pursuant to the provisions of Rule 14(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.
Upon January 8, 1964, the United States Attorney moved the Court to dismiss the above styled actions as to the defendant John Sullivan. It is undisputed that the accident complained of occurred while the defendant, John Sullivan, was acting within the course and scope of his employment as a rural mail carrier for the United States Post Office Department. It is contended by the United States Attorney that an action against the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) is the exclusive remedy pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b). There being no opposition to the defendant's motions to dismiss and the motions to dismiss appearing to be well founded, the Court is of the opinion that the suits against the defendant, John Sullivan, should be dismissed.
Upon March 2, 1964, the third-party defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, moved to dismiss the third-party complaints filed against it by the United States of America. It is the contention of the third-party defendant that 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b) provides that the exclusive remedy of the plaintiffs is an action against the United States. The United States of America, on the other hand, contends that it is an additional insured under the terms of the omnibus clause of the insurance policy of its employee, John Sullivan, and is therefore entitled to rely upon the insurance contract for the coverage and protection therein stated.
However, as pointed out in an opinion by Judge Brown in the Western District of Tennessee, in the case of Vaughn et al. v. United States v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, 225 F.Supp. 890, the Gipson case apparently did not involve the construction of an omnibus clause such as that involved in the Vaughn case and the cases before this Court. Following the case of Irvin v. United States, 148 F.Supp. 25 (D.C.S.D., 1957), Judge Brown stated in the Vaughn case that:
* *"
Although the Irvin case was decided prior to the 1961 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b) and involved a construction of 28 U.S.C. § 2674, it is believed that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Nuclear Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co.
...that construction placed on them, even though such construction violates the literal sense of the words used. Patterson v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 447, 449 (E.D.Tenn.1964) (quoting 44 C.J.S. Insurance Sec. 293 (1945)). Allendale issued its policy of insurance to UNC in July, 1977. All of......
-
United States v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., Inc.
...Automobile Ins. Co., 233 F.Supp. 171 (W.D.La. 1964); Barker v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 455 (N.D.Ga.1964); Patterson v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 447 (E.D.Tenn.1964); Nistendirk v. United States, 225 F.Supp. 884 (W.D.Mo. 1964). Contra, Gipson v. Shelley, 219 F.Supp. 915 (E.D.Tenn.1963), ......
-
United States v. Myers
...U.S. 1026, 86 S.Ct. 646, 15 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966); Adams v. United States, 241 F.Supp. 383, 385 (S.D.Ill.1965); Patterson v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 447, 449 (E.D.Tenn. 1964).2 Fully cognizant of the wealth of authority opposing its conclusions, the district court attempted to distinguish t......
-
Myers v. United States, Civ. A. No. 3-519.
... ... 884; Vaughn v. United States v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (W.D.Tenn., 1964), 225 F.Supp. 890; Patterson v. United States v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (E.D.Tenn., 1964), 233 F.Supp. 447; McCrary v. United States (E.D.Tenn., 1964), ... ...