Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1967
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 5743.
• Citation: 264 F. Supp. 757
• Parties: UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

264 F. Supp. 757

UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 5743.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, N. D.

January 20, 1967.

Order February 6, 1967.

Poore, Cox, Baker & McAuley, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Robert S. Young, H. H. McCampbell, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, Chief Judge.

Before the Court for consideration is the motion of Ford Motor Company made pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment in its favor dismissing the complaint on the ground that there is no issue as to any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The reason for its motion is that the jury in the State Court trial of Creed Ayres v. Braden Trucks, Inc., Ogle, Ford Motor Company, and Hull-Dobbs Company, found that Hull-Dobbs, plaintiff's insured, was guilty of primary negligence which precludes it from indemnity in the present case. Ayres was the injured party in the State Court trial and his judgment for $201,325.00 was against Hull-Dobbs and Braden Trucks, Inc. only, the jury having found for Ford Motor Company and Ogle, the driver of the truck involved in the accident.

The parties agree that the rights of Universal Underwriters Insurance Company are no greater than the rights of the Hull-Dobbs Company were it a party to the present suit. The insurance company stands in the shoes of its insured, Hull-Dobbs Company, in the present litigation.

In support of the motion for summary judgment there are filed Exhibits 1 through 11. These exhibits are from the State Court case and include the amended declaration, motion of Ford Motor Company for more definite statement, order on the motion, express plea of defendant Ford Motor Company, special pleas of the defendant Hull-Dobbs, instructions to the jury, judgment, motion of the defendant Hull-Dobbs for a new trial and other relief, opinion of Court of Appeals, petition of Hull-Dobbs for rehearing, and memorandum of Court of Appeals on petition to rehear.

It is the main contention of plaintiff in the present proceeding that the findings of the jury do not preclude it from proceeding in this separate action for indemnity against the Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff says that the State case involved negligence only, whereas this case seeks indemnity on the theory that the Ford Motor Company sold it the truck that was involved in the accident in the State suit in a defective condition particularly with respect to its brakes; that Ford impliedly contracted with it that the truck was fit for use as Ford knew that it would be sold to a member of the public and that that member would use the truck in the ordinary course of business and that it was not fit for such use, that it was in a defective condition because of the brakes.

The plaintiff says that the implied warranty theory upon which it bases its present case was not before the Court or the jury in the State trial.

Plaintiff is correct in this contention. This Court has examined the portion of the court record filed in the present proceeding and is satisfied that the implied warranty theory was not involved in the State Court proceeding.

In that connection, the Ford Motor Company does not contend that the implied warranty theory was involved in the State proceeding.

The rule is that if two or more parties are named as defendants in an action and such defendants are not adversaries in that proceeding, the one who is cast in the suit is not precluded from seeking indemnity or contribution from the co-defendant on theories that were not litigated in the original suit. The styling of the parties in the original proceeding does not necessarily determine whether they are adversaries. The test is whether they make each other adversaries by raising issues among themselves. If they do they are bound by the findings of the jury or the Court, whichever is the finder of the facts. The parties are also bound by the conclusions of law with respect to the issues before the Court or such issues as could have been brought before the Court.

This rule was discussed in the case of Fidelity & Casualty Company v. Federal Express (November 10, 1938) (C. A. 6), and reported at 99 F.2d 681. The case was again before the Court on June 3, 1943. The opinion on the second appeal is reported in 136 F.2d 35.

This Court dealt with some of the issues in a case tried at Greeneville involving Clinchfield Railroad v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, D.C., 160 F.Supp. 337, affirmed in 6 Cir., 263 F.2d 932.

None of the cases are decisive of the present case as their facts were somewhat different from the facts in the present case. A sharp issue is drawn between the parties in the present case on what the jury found in the State case.

Ford Motor Company says that the jury found that Hull-Dobbs, plaintiff's insured, was guilty of primary negligence which precludes it from recovering indemnity from Ford Motor Company or any other party. In support of this contention Frumer and Friedman Products Liability, 19...