Schrag v. Koontz, Civ. A. No. 14674.

• Decision Date: 24 September 1957
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 14674.
• Citation: 155 F. Supp. 516
• Parties: Leah Griffith SCHRAG, in her own right and Leah Griffith Schrag, Administratrix of the Estate of David Schrag, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. I. F. KOONTZ and Frank Koontz, individually and as co-partners trading as Anchor Cement Block Works, Defendants and Third-party Plaintiffs, Leah Griffith SCHRAG, Administratrix of the Estate of David Schrag, deceased, Third-party Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

155 F. Supp. 516

Leah Griffith SCHRAG, in her own right and Leah Griffith Schrag, Administratrix of the Estate of David Schrag, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. I. F. KOONTZ and Frank Koontz, individually and as co-partners trading as Anchor Cement Block Works, Defendants and Third-party Plaintiffs, Leah Griffith SCHRAG, Administratrix of the Estate of David Schrag, deceased, Third-party Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 14674.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

September 24, 1957.

Benjamin Crone, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Herbert Jacobson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

William J. Lancaster, Pittsburgh, Pa., for third-party defendant.

MARSH, District Judge.

At the request of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, William J. Lancaster, Esq., a member of the bar of this Court, entered his appearance for Leah Griffith Schrag, Administratrix of the Estate of David Schrag, deceased, the third-party defendant in the above entitled case. After filing an answer for her, and after the expiration of about nine months, the said attorney asked leave to withdraw his appearance, alleging that his client, the said insurance company, "now believes that it does not owe coverage, and that it does not owe a defense to the claim of Leah Griffith Schrag, in her own right, against Leah Griffith Schrag, Administratrix of the Estate of David Schrag, deceased, third-party defendant."¹ Accordingly, the insurance company ordered Attorney Lancaster to withdraw his appearance for the third-party defendant. Under Rule 2 of this court, counsel must obtain leave of court to withdraw an appearance.

The petition is formally resisted by the plaintiffs. They argue that the said insurance company not only legally owes a defense and coverage to the third-party defendant, but also the said company and its counsel by actively assuming "control of the third-party defendant's case, have waived their right to deny coverage, and are estopped from asserting this argument."²

The court is of the opinion that said attorney should be permitted to withdraw his appearance, unless it can be shown that the third-party defendant would be prejudiced by this action.

The Administratrix has not specified how she will be prejudiced by the withdrawal of insurer's counsel, and the court is unable to perceive any legal disadvantage which might result therefrom. To be sure, plaintiffs' counsel argues that the Administratrix will be prejudiced for "practical" reasons, but these reasons do not appear in his brief.

The Administratrix, as a plaintiff, has retained competent and skillful counsel. As a plaintiff and third-party defendant, she has identical legal and factual burdens to be litigated at the trial, viz.: to establish that the defendants were the...