Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Meadows
| Citation | 125 F.2d 422 |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 10039.,10039. |
| Parties | STANDARD ACC. INS. CO. v. MEADOWS. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
J. Morgan Stevens, of Jackson, Miss., for appellant.
R. C. Russell, of Magee, Miss., for appellees.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, plaintiff below, is an automobile insurance company. Appellees, defendants below, are the plaintiffs and Strider and Wood, two of the defendants in a state court suit for damages sustained in an automobile collision. The suit was for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff under a policy it had issued to Strider and Wood was not obligated to defend the state court action or to pay and satisfy any judgment which plaintiffs might recover therein.
The defendants, agreeing that they were not in any wise responsible for or liable to plaintiffs in the state court suit, on account of the collision, yet insisted that under the terms of the policy,1 plaintiff, its insured, was obligated to defend the suit though groundless, and was also obligated to pay any judgment plaintiffs in the state court suit might obtain against them. Joining plaintiff in its prayer for a declaration of rights they prayed that the respective rights and obligations under the insurance contract be fully determined. The other defendants, the plaintiffs in the state court suit, alleging that all the matters sought to be determined in the declaratory judgment suit were at issue in the state court suit and could be more properly determined there, moved to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The district judge, on the pleadings and without taking evidence, holding that no facts were pleaded entitling plaintiff to relief against plaintiffs in the state court suit, dismissed them from the action. As between the declarer plaintiff, and the defendants Strider and Wood, he determined and so ordered, (1) that plaintiff was obligated under its policy to defend the suit, though false and groundless, and (2), "if a judgment should be recovered in the state court action upon the pleadings as they now stand" * * * "plaintiff is under obligation to pay it." Plaintiff appealing from the order dismissing the state court plaintiffs from the suit, and from the declaratory judgment as between it and the defendants, Strider and Wood, insists that they may not stand.
Plaintiff in this suit had no controversy with plaintiffs in the state court suit which would entitle it to a declaration upon the question of negligence vel non primarily asserted there. It sought no declaration on that point. The declaration it sought was as to whether the injuries claimed to have been received were within the coverage of its policy. It has been repeatedly held in this circuit and elsewhere2 that whether an insurer is bound under an automobile insurance policy by a judgment against its insured, presents a controversy for declaratory judgment as between it, its insured and the plaintiff in a damage suit against its insured and it was plain error to dismiss the state court plaintiffs from the suit. It was equally plain error to deny plaintiff a trial on the merits and to declare and adjudge on the basis of the pleadings including those of the plaintiffs in the state court suit, that plaintiff in this suit was obligated to defend the state court suit and "if a judgment should be recovered upon the pleadings as they now stand, plaintiff in this suit would be liable to pay it." In Southern Underwriters v. Dunn, 5 Cir.,3 96 F.2d 224, 226, the district judge held that, though the allegations were stipulated to be and were false and fraudulent, the insurer was obligated to defend the suits and "to pay off * * * any judgment or judgments rendered in said suits * * * based upon a finding or findings that the facts are true which are set forth in the pleadings in such suits."
We reversed.4 Here plaintiff flatly and positively alleged that the allegations in the state court petition, that the car involved in the collision was the car of plaintiff's assured and that the driver thereof was their employee, are false and untrue, and that the facts are that its assured had no interest in and nothing whatever to do with the car or its driver. On these allegations, bringing in question not whether the deceased had been injured by the negligence of the driver of the car as alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Terte
...87; 1 Am. Jur., sec. 40, p. 44; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 85 L.Ed. 826, 61 S.Ct. 510; Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Meadows, 125 F.2d 422, 424(3); Cent. Sur. & Ins. Corp. v. Norris, 103 F.2d 116, Carpenter v. Edmonson, 92 F.2d 895, 897. [9]State ex rel. Townsend v.......
-
Centennial Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
...8 and its claim is justiciable, despite the absence of a judgment in Williams' suit against Ryder. 9 See Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Meadows, 125 F.2d 422, 423-24 (5th Cir.1942); see also GTE Directories Pub. Corp. v. Trimen Am., Inc., 67 F.3d 1563, 1569-70 (11th Cir.1995); American State......
-
Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ramirez
...that the dismissal of a state court plaintiff from a declaratory judgment action would be a plain error. Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Meadows, 125 F.2d 422, 424 (5th Cir.1942). The Fifth Circuit has continued to affirm its decision in Meadows that an injured party who has sued an insured, ......
-
Tower Grp. Cos. v. Ozark Hous. Dev. Inc., Case No. 1:12–cv–0493–MEF.
...of a state court judgment holding the insured liable. See Maryland Cas., 312 U.S. at 274, 61 S.Ct. 510;see also Standard Accident Ins. v. Meadows, 125 F.2d 422 (5th Cir.1942); Ranger Ins. Co. v. United Hous. of New Mexico, Inc., 488 F.2d 682, 684 (5th Cir.1974). 5. Under Alabama law, the re......