Sutton Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rolph
| Decision Date | 17 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5739,5739 |
| Parties | SUTTON MUTUAL INS. CO. v. Loyal F. ROLPH, Jr., et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Bell & Kennedy (Ernest L. Bell, III, orally), Keene, for plaintiff.
Green, Green, Romprey & Sullivan, Manchester, for Loyal F. Rolph, Jr. (Luke S. O'Neill, Jr., Manchester, orally).
Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch and Luke S. O'Neill, Jr., Manchester, for Frances A. and Ernest Gould.
Wadleigh, Langdell, Starr, Peters & Dunn, and James M. Winston, Manchester, for defendant Richard J. Walsh, Jr.
Cooper, Hall & Walker, Rochester, for defendant Raymond H. Pearson, Adm'r.
Bill of interpleader by an insurer seeking a determination of its duties under liability provisions of a 'combination automobile policy' of insurance issued to the defendant Loyal F. Rolph, Jr., as the owner of an automobile which was involved in a three-car collision at Hooksett on January 25, 1965, while it was being operated by the defendant Raymond S. Donahue, Jr. On filing its bill, the plaintiff deposited with the Clerk of Court the sum of $21,045, representing total property damage claims of $1,295, plus the limit of its liability for personal injury of $20,000, less $250 previously paid out in settlement of a personal injury claim of Antoinette Counter, arising out of the accident. The plaintiff sought a decree that 'its duty to defend ceases to exist upon the date of said payment' into court, and prayed that the proceeds deposited be distributed upon order of the Court.
Trial by the Court (Bownes, J.). The Court entered an order denying the bill, and requiring the plaintiff 'to assume the defense' of the defendants Rolph and Donahue 'as to all claims against them arising out of the accident of January 25, 1965.' The plaintiff's exceptions were reserved and transferred.
A bill of interpleader is an appropriate remedy when proceeds of an insurance policy are inadequate to satisfy pending claims. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. LePage, 105 N.H. 327, 328, 200 A.2d 12. See, Traveller's Ind. Co. v. N. E. Box Co., 102 N.H. 380, 387, 157 A.2d 765. However, this petition was brought in advance of reduction of any claims to judgment, or any agreement for settlement of any of them, except for the $250 settlement previously referred to. In effect, as the insured argues, the insurer sought to pay the limit of its liability into court in advance of any determination of the validity of the pending claims, and to 'walk away' without defending them. We agree with the defendants that the plaintiff's undertaking does not permit it to do so.
By part I of its policy, the plaintiff agreed with its insured, subject to the limits of liability, exclusions, conditions, and other terms of the policy, 'to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which (he) shall become legally liable to pay as damages,' caused by accident arising out of use of the insured vehicle. By part II of the policy it agreed: 'With respect to such insurance as is afforded by this policy * * * the company shall: * * * defend any suit against the insured * * * even if such suit is groundless false or fraudulent'; but reserved the right to make 'such settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 337PA88
...476 So.2d 79 (Ala.1985); Conway v. County Cas. Ins. Co., 92 Ill.2d 388, 65 Ill.Dec. 934, 442 N.E.2d 245 (1982); Sutton Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rolph, 109 N.H. 142, 244 A.2d 186 (1968); Delaney v. Vardine Paratransit, Inc., 132 Misc.2d 397, 504 N.Y.S.2d 70 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1986), and Batdorf v. Transa......
-
Pareti v. Sentry Indem. Co.
...the policy clearly is not acting in good faith and may be held liable for damages caused to its insured. See Sutton Mutual Cas. Co. v. Rolph, 109 N.H. 142, 244 A.2d 186, 188 (1968); Lumbermen's Mutual Cas. Co. v. McCarthy, 90 N.H. 320, 8 A.2d 750 If in fact an insurer enters into a good fai......
-
Forbes v. Boynton
...the insurer to defend the insured against claims made against him which persists until the claim is disposed of. Sutton Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rolph, 109 N.H. 142, 244 A.2d 186 (1968); Goldberg v. Lumber Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 297 N.Y. 148, 77 N.E.2d 131 (1948). We hold that these present and defini......
-
Samply v. Integrity Ins. Co.
...219 Ga. 6, 131 S.E.2d 534 (1963); Oda v. Highway Insurance Co., 44 Ill.App.2d 235, 194 N.E.2d 489 (1963); Sutton Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rolph, 109 N.H. 142, 244 A.2d 186 (1968); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. New England Box Co., 102 N.Y. 380, 157 A.2d 765 Integrity recognizes, of course, that......