Utilities Insurance Company v. Ledford, 13412.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 13412.,13412. |
| Citation | 255 F.2d 123 |
| Parties | UTILITIES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Ervin LEDFORD, Iris Costner Ledford, James Ivan Evans, alias Ivan Costner, Boyd Ledford and Marie C. Ball, Administratrix of the Estate of Rufus Johnnie Ball, Deceased, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
J. H. Doughty, Knoxville, Tenn., Hodges & Doughty, Harve M. Duggins, Knoxville, Tenn., on brief, for appellant.
George D. Montgomery, Knoxville, Tenn., Donaldson, Montgomery & Kennerly, Knoxville, Tenn., Edward F. Hurd, Newport, Tenn., on brief, for appellees.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, McALLISTER, Circuit Judge, and JONES, District Judge.
The appellant insured and agreed to defend Ervin Ledford, owner of the car involved in an accident with another car, two of the occupants of which have brought separate actions in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee, for personal injuries (in one case alleged to have resulted in death) against Ledford the insured, and Ivan Evans, the driver of his car, alleged in one case to have been his agent, and in both cases alleged to have driven it with Ledford's permission.
In the suit here all the plaintiffs and all the defendants in the two county actions were made parties defendants and relief was asked by way of declaratory judgment in respect of an alleged controversy wholly between citizens of different states. The controversy sought to be adjudicated arose out of a threat by parties plaintiff in the county actions to proceed against the appellant upon judgments, if not satisfied, and demand by defendant Evans in the county cases that appellant defend him in both actions because of the claim in the one case that Evans was Ledford's agent, and in both cases that the car was being driven with Ledford's permission; and, therefore entitled to the coverage of the Ledford policy.
Upon his own motion, after issue joined, the District Judge dismissed this suit on the ground that the issues were fact issues determinative of liability under the provisions of the policy, and that each issue can be settled in the pending state court litigation, relying upon Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 86 L.Ed. 1620.
In our view, the standard for the exercise of the discretion of the trial court whether to entertain an action for declaratory judgment as to rights and liabilities of parties who are also parties to pending state court litigation is the question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Central Railroad Co. v. Colonial Stores, Inc.
...390 U.S. 102, 126, 88 S.Ct. 733, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968). It has been adopted by our Circuit Court. See, Utilities Insurance Company v. Ledford, 255 F.2d 123, 124 (6th Cir. 1958). In the Ledford case, supra, suits were pending in state court by a plaintiff injured in an automobile accident ag......
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Zurich Insurance Company
...suit if the controversy between the parties will not necessarily be determined in that suit. * * *" See also Utilities Insurance Company v. Ledford, 255 F.2d 123 (6th Cir., 1958); Hoosier Casualty Co. v. Chimes, Inc., 95 F.Supp. 879 (E.D.Mich., 1951). While it is true that the granting of t......
-
In re Hartley
...390 U.S. 102, 126, 88 S.Ct. 733, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968). It has been adopted by our Circuit Court. See, Utilities Insurance Company v. Ledford, 255 F.2d 123, 124 (6th Cir.1958). 332 F.Supp. at Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the pending state court action......
-
Travelers Indemnity Company v. Winmill
...which have heeded this advice and applied its restraint in situations like the present are numerous. See, e. g., Utilities Ins. Co. v. Ledford, 255 F.2d 123 (6th Cir. 1958); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bonwell, 248 F.2d 862 (8th Cir. 1957); National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v......