Underwood v. Buzby
Decision Date | 11 September 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 11864.,11864. |
Citation | 236 F.2d 937 |
Parties | Harry C. UNDERWOOD v. Thomas F. BUZBY, Individually and trading as Maryland-Pennsylvania Express, Defendant, and E. Hubschman & Sons, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. American Fidelity & Casualty Company, Inc., Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John J. McDevitt, III, Philadelphia, Pa. (Bernard J. Smolens, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Milton M. Borowsky, Philadelphia, Pa. (Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Before MARIS and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges, and VAN DUSEN, District Judge.
This case raises the question of whether the trial court was correct in holding that a public liability insurance carrier is required by the following terms of its policy to pay interest on the uninsured portion of a verdict from the date of entry of judgment on that verdict to the date of payment into court of the proceeds of the policy and interest thereon:1
Condition No. 8 of the policy provides:
"The insured shall cooperate with the company and, upon the company\'s request shall * * * assist * * * in the conduct of suits."
Although the question is not free from doubt, due to the preamble first quoted referring to "the insurance afforded by * * * Coverage A" which limits the liability to $25,000, we think the district court rightly applied the well recognized rule of law requiring interpretation of such an insurance contract against the insurer,2 who has prepared it and who could easily have made clear the restrictive interpretation of the literal meaning of the words "all interest accruing after entry of judgment until the company has paid, tendered, or deposited in court such part of such judgment as does not exceed the limit of the company's liability thereon," for which it contends. Recognizing that the court decisions are in conflict on the interpretation of this wording in insurance contracts,3 we believe the reasoning of Judge Clary's opinion in this case and of Chief Judge Hutcheson's opinion in Wilkerson v. Maryland Casualty Co., D.C. E.D.Va.1953, 119 F.Supp. 383, 388, affirmed per curiam, 4 Cir., 1954, 210 F. 2d 245, is that which would be followed by a Maryland Court in this situation in view of the rule of construction which, as we have seen,4 is followed in that state.
This construction of the contract is not "unnatural"5 in view of the reservation by the insurer of the ability to terminate its liability for interest through payment of the amount of its obligation under any judgment into court and of its right6 to control the conduct of the suit.7
The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
1 The opinion of the lower court summarizes the applicable factual situation as follows 136 F.Supp. 958:
2 During the oral argument, counsel conceded that the policy was probably delivered in Maryland and the only evidence in the record on the point was the statement on the copy attached to the Stipulation stating that it was countersigned at Baltimore (Appendix 19A). Under the applicable Conflict of Laws rule, Maryland law controls the interpretation of its language. See Harry L. Sheinman & Sons v. Scranton Life Ins. Co., 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McPhee v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
...While policies are to be given a reasonable construction and not one that leads to an absurd result, 11 as pointed out in Underwood v. Buzby, supra, 236 F.2d at p. 938, this construction is not 'unnatural' 12 in view of the company's right to control the conduct of the suit and its power to......
-
United Services Automobile Association v. Russom
...Co., D.C.Va., 119 F.Supp. 383, affirmed 4 Cir., 210 F.2d 245; Underwood v. Buzby, D.C.Pa., 136 F.Supp. 957, subsequently affirmed, 3 Cir., 236 F.2d 937. The Court quoted from Appleman Automobile Liability Insurance, page "`The intention of the framers is quite clear. In addition to the poli......
-
Nichols v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...by the payment of the insured portion of the judgment. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Wilkerson, 4 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 245; Underwood v. Buzby, 3 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 937; United Service Automobile Assn. v. Russom, 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 296. See Annotation, Liability of indemnity or liability insur......
-
Hafer v. Schauer
...that the insurer pay interest on the full amount of the verdict. See Underwood v. Buzby, 136 F.Supp. 957 (E.D.Pa.1955), aff'd 236 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1956). Plaintiff in Underwood obtained a verdict of $60,000 in an automobile negligence case. Defendant was insured only to the extent of $25,0......