Riding v. Travelers' Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 6391, 6392.,6391, 6392. |
| Parties | RIDING v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO. (two cases.) |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Washington County; Willard B. Tanner, Presiding Justice.
Separate actions in trespass on the case for negligence by Edith A. Riding against the Travelers' Insurance Company, and by Harry Riding against defendant named. Plaintiff's demurrer to special pleas in each case were overruled, and decision entered for defendant, and plaintiffs bring exceptions from the superior court. Exceptions overruled, and each case remitted for entry of judgment on the decision.
Quinn, Kernan & Quinn, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Ralph T. Barnefield, of Providence, for defendant.
Each of the above-entitled cases is an action of trespass on the case for negligence brought directly against the defendant, a foreign insurance company.
The declaration in each case alleges that the plaintiff, while riding in an automobile in the city of Providence, in the exercise of due care, was injured through the negligence of one Handelman, a resident of the state of New York, whom the plaintiff alleges carelessly drove an automobile against that in which the plaintiff was riding, causing said injury.
The declaration further alleges that the plaintiff commenced an action against Handelman to recover damages for said injury; that the sheriff charged with the service of the writ in that action was unable to find Handelman in this state and returned the writ in said action "non est inventus."
The declaration further alleges that the defendant had issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to said Handelman which was in full force and effect at the time of the alleged injury to the plaintiff, by the terms of which policy of insurance Handelman was insured against liability on account of personal injuries resulting to others by reason of the operation of a motor vehicle by said Handelman.
The declaration further alleges that, by reason of the foregoing facts, the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of section 7, c. 258, General Laws 1923, was entitled to proceed in this action directly against the defendant insurance company.
To this declaration the defendant filed a special plea, stating therein that said policy of insurance was not issued in this state, nor written or issued subject to the provisions of said section 7 of chapter 258, and contained no provision that the defendant company should be directly liable to the injured party and that said Handelman, at the time of the issuance of the policy and of the accident, was and still is a resident and citizen of the state of New York.
In each case the plaintiff demurred to the special plea on the ground that the facts stated therein did not constitute a defense to the action.
The demurrer was overruled by the superior court and decision entered for the defendant for costs. Each case is before us upon the plaintiff's exception to the decision overruling the demurrer.
The essential provisions of section 7, c. 258, are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McArthur v. Maryland Casvalts Co.
... ... is the holding of the Mississippi authority of ... Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Inman, 157 Miss. 810, 128 ... So. 877, in which this court upheld the right of an ... similar statutes ... Riding ... v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 48 R. I. 433, 138 A. 186; ... Lowery v. Zorn, 157 So. 831; Caderre ... ...
-
Yeats v. Dodson
... ... contractus as Oklahoma. New York Life Ins. Co. v ... Fletcher, 117 U.S. 519, 29 L.Ed. 934; Allgeyer v ... Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 41 ... Western Auto Ins. Co. v ... Trimble, 297 Mo. 659, 249 S.W. 902; Coderre v ... Travelers Ins. Co., 48 R. I. 152, 136 A. 305; Riding ... v. Travelers Ins. Co., 48 R. I. 433, 138 A. 186; ... ...
-
Macey v. Crum
... ... contracts neither made nor to be performed in the enacting ... state. Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397, 50 S.Ct ... 338, 74 L.Ed. 926, 74 A.L.R. 701; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v ... insurance contracts. Wheat v. White, D.C., 38 ... F.Supp. 796; Coderre v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 48 ... R.I. 152, 136 A. 305, 54 A.L.R. 512; Riding v ... Travelers' Ins. Co., 48 R.I ... ...
-
Armacost v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 91-0447 P.
...reasonably and fairly.5 Finally, relying on Coderre v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 48 R.I. 152, 136 A. 305 (1927) and Riding v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 48 R.I. 433, 138 A. 186 (1927), Amica questions the constitutionality of § 27-7-2.2. It argues that the statute purports to enlarge the liability of ......