Saltzman v. Great American Indemnity Co.
Decision Date | 29 October 1953 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 361. |
Citation | 115 F. Supp. 944 |
Parties | SALTZMAN v. GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Thomas B. Tinnon, Mountain Home, Ark., for plaintiff.
Owens, Ehrman & McHaney, Little Rock, Ark., for defendant.
The case was submitted to the Court upon the pleadings, the stipulation of facts and exhibits thereto, and the briefs of the parties in support of their respective contentions, and the Court, having considered the same, now makes and files herein its findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated.
The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Mountain Home, Arkansas, in the Western District. The defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and is engaged in and duly authorized to carry on the business of public liability insurance in the State of Arkansas. The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $3,000.
It was agreed by stipulation of parties filed on September 9, 1953, that:
The policy issued to the plaintiff provides that the defendant agrees with the insured, subject to exclusions, conditions and other terms of the policy, "To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law * * * for damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof."
Under the title "Exclusions" the policy provides that it does not apply "to the ownership, maintenance or use, including loading and unloading, of * * aircraft," or to "injury to or destruction of property used by, rented to or in the care, custody or control of the insured."
Part II of the policy provides that "As respects such insurance as is afforded by the other terms of this policy under Coverage A the company shall (a) defend in his name and behalf any suit against the insured alleging such injury, sickness, disease or destruction and seeking damages on account thereof, even if such suit is groundless, false or fraudulent * * *."
As heretofore stated in finding of fact No. 2, the defendant denied that the occurrence was covered by the policy and refused to defend the action brought against the plaintiff by the Insurance Company of North America and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
Considering the issues, amount of work involved, experience of plaintiff's attorney, result of the litigation, and other factors present in the disposition of this case, the Court is of the opinion that a reasonable attorney's fee for plaintiff is $750.
Discussion.
The parties agree that the question for determination is whether the occurrence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paktank Louisiana, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc.
...v. The Travelers Indemnity Co., 38 N.J.Super. 599, 607, 120 A.2d 250, 254 (App.Div.1956); see Saltzman v. Great American Indemnity Co. of New York, 115 F.Supp. 944, 951 (W.D.Ark.1953), aff'd, 213 F.2d 743 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 862, 75 S.Ct. 85, 99 L.Ed. 679 (1954); Hardware Mut......
- Great American Indem. Co. of New York v. Saltzman
-
Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Crafton
...the vast majority of the cases involving construction of the care, custody and control exclusions is the fact that with the exception of the Saltzman case, [Saltzman v. Great American Indemnity Co., D.C., 115 F.Supp. 944 which is frequently quoted] the insured was under a contract with the ......
-
Edwards v. Travelers Indem. Co.
... ... 5 McCanless 435, 201 Tenn. 435 ... N. C. EDWARDS ... TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO ... Supreme Court of Tennessee ... March 8, 1957 ... the identical language of the policy in the instant suit is Great American Indem. Co. of N. Y. v. Saltzman, 8 Cir., 213 F.2d 743, 746. The ... ...