MALONE AND HOGAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BOSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the insurer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the hospital reasonably concluded no claim would arise from the incident.
An insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable under a policy due to the insured hospital's failure to provide notice of an injury. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Boston Insurance Company brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking to have declared that it is not liable to Malone and Hogan Hospital Foundation, as insured, and to Forrest Gambill, an injured claimant, under a liability policy Boston had issued to the hospital, by reason of the hospital’s failure to give notice to Boston of injury to Gambill.
Boston moved for an instructed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence. The court was of the opinion that Boston was entitled to judgment as a matter of law but followed the recommended practice of submitting possible fact issues to the jury so that remand for a new trial might be obviated if on appeal this court found him in error. The jury returned its verdict by answer to special interrogatories finding that the administrator of the hospital made a full, complete and fair investigation of the occurrence and on the basis thereof reasonably concluded that it was of such nature that it would not reasonably be expected to result in any claim or liability. The court then granted Boston’s motion for judgment n. o. v. The hospital has appealed.
We are in full accord with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set out by the trial court in its well-considered opinion, D.C, 269 F.Supp. 19. The evidence entitled Boston to judgment as a matter of law. The motion for judgment n. o. v. was properly granted.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brunswick Corp. & Sherwood Med. Indus., Inc. v. Sheridan, 582 F.2d 175 (2d Cir. 1978)
-
Burris v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., Inc., 713 F.2d 1087 (5th Cir. 1983)
-
Nichols Constr. Corp. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 808 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence