Vaughn v. United States, Civ. A. No. 1356.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1356. |
| Citation | 225 F. Supp. 890 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
| Parties | Christopher C. VAUGHN, Mrs. Lillian Vaughn, Chrissie S. Vaughn, a minor by next friend, Dr. J. F. Vaughn, and Dr. J. F. Vaughn, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant. |
Aaron C. Brown, Paris, Tenn., Richard R. Bryan, Paducah, Ky., for plaintiffs.
Odell Horton, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Thomas L. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., Dwayne D. Maddox, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., for United States.
Roy Hall, Waldrop, Hall & Tomlin, Jackson, Tenn., for Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.
These are personal injury actions brought pursuant to diversity jurisdiction against the original defendant, Garland T. Wilson. Wilson, at the time of this automobile accident, was acting in furtherance of his duties as a United States rural mail carrier. The United States Attorney for this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C., § 2679, has filed a "Certification As To Scope of Employment," and this action has thus become one against the United States under the Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C., § 2671 et seq.
The United States has filed a third party claim against Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, asserting that the United States is an additional insured under a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by that company in which the Government employee, Wilson, is the named insured and the automobile involved is the insured vehicle. The insurance company has denied coverage to the United States and has filed a motion to dismiss this third party claim. The contentions of the parties with respect to this motion were heard at a pretrial conference at which the Court overruled the motion. This memorandum decision has been prepared for the purpose of more fully spelling out the basis for the action of the Court in overruling this motion to dismiss.
In support of its contention that it is an additional insured, the United States relies on the definition of an "insured" in the policy as including "* * * any person or organization legally responsible for the use thereof by an insured * * *." The United States does seem to come squarely within that language. There does not appear to be much authority on this point. However, Irvin v. United States, 148 F.Supp. 25 (D.C.S.D. 1957) holds that the United States is an additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schurgast v. Schumann
...has been sustained under Federal Rule 14(a). Schevling v. Johnson, D.C., 122 F.Supp. 87, aff'd, 2 Cir., 213 F.2d 959; Vaughn v. United States, D.C., 225 F.Supp. 890; Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 426.2; 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d Ed.), 14.12; see Wright, 'Joinder of......
-
United States v. Myers
...McCrary v. United States, 235 F.Supp. 33 (E.D.Tenn.1964); Patterson v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 447; Vaughn v. United States, 225 F.Supp. 890 (E.D.Tenn. 1964); Nistendirk v. McGee, 225 F.Supp. 883 (W.D.Mo.1963); Irvin v. United States, 148 F.Supp. 25 (D.S.D.1957); Rowley v. United States,......
-
Myers v. United States, Civ. A. No. 3-519.
... ... McGee (W.D.Mo., 1963), 225 F.Supp. 883; Nistendrik v. United States v. M. F. A. Mutual Insurance Company (W.D.Mo., 1964), 225 F.Supp. 884; Vaughn v. United States v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (W.D.Tenn., 1964), 225 F.Supp. 890; Patterson v. United States v. State Farm Mutual ... ...
-
Satterwhite v. Stolz
...He cites the following cases in support of his position: Purcell v. United States, D.C., 242 F.Supp. 789 (1965); Vaughn v. United States, D.C., 225 F.Supp. 890 (1964); Jordan v. Stephens, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 140 (1945). In opposing this contention, third-party defendant cites American Zinc Co. o......