VanHORN v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Decision Date20 October 1966
Docket NumberCiv. No. 28697.
Citation283 F. Supp. 260
PartiesAlton J. VanHORN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, and Robert Nelson, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

Peter E. Bradt, Port Huron, Mich., for plaintiff.

Eggenberger & Eggenberger, Detroit, Mich., for defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

John J. Goetz, Mt. Clemens, Mich., for defendant, Robert Nelson.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STATE FARM'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

KAESS, District Judge.

This action was brought in the Circuit Court for St. Clair County, Michigan, to recover under automobile insurance policy Number 2853 932-F19-22, issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to plaintiff. It was removed to this court pursuant to the provisions of Section 1441(a) of Title 28, United States Code.

In "INSURING AGREEMENT III — UNINSURED AUTOMOBILE COVERAGE" of the policy issued to plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company agreed:

"To pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile; provided, for the purposes of this coverage, determination as to whether the insured or such representative is legally entitled to recover such damages, and if so the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured or such representative and the company or, if they fail to agree, by arbitration."

It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff was injured when the automobile he was driving was struck by an uninsured automobile negligently driven by defendant Robert Nelson. The parties have been unable to agree, and neither side has demanded arbitration. It is plaintiff's position that the arbitration provision is void and unenforceable because it violates the Michigan arbitration law,1 violates the Michigan court rule providing for vacating or modifying arbitration awards,2 waives plaintiff's right to the trial of the issues by a court, attempts to delegate judicial power to private individuals, and does not provide a reasonable remedy for adjudicating claims.

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant advances two arguments in support of its motion: First, the Michigan statute which prohibits naming an insurer in an original action for personal injury precludes a direct action against defendants;3 second, in Michigan,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Pollard v. Roberts
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • April 11, 1968
    ... ... , Individually and as Chairman of the State Committee of the Republican Party of Arkansas; ... ...
  • Schy v. Susquehanna Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • January 27, 1970
    ...ground alone must be without prejudice. Tademy v. Scott et al., 157 F.2d 826, 828 (5th Cir.1946); Van Horn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 283 F.Supp. 260, 261 (E.D.Mich.1966), affirmed 6 Cir., 391 F.2d 910. In addition, a motion to dismiss based upon a lack of damages, may p......
  • KODIAK-ALEUTIAN CHAPTER OF ALASKA, ETC. v. Kleppe, Civ. No. A76-132.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Alaska
    • December 7, 1976
    ...was not properly raised in a motion to dismiss. Although the court disagrees with this assertion, See Van Horn v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 283 F.Supp. 260 (E.D.Mich.1966), aff'd, 6 Cir., 391 F.2d 910; 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1360, p. 101 (1975 pocket part)......
  • Morrison v. Therm-O-Rite Products Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • April 24, 1979
    ...is temporarily barred in the state court by a compulsory arbitration statute. Id. at 973. See also Van Horn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 283 F.Supp. 260 (E.D.Mich.1966). Until the arbitration proceeding has been completed, the complaint fails to state a claim under the law......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT