LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY AND RAY DALTON, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 insured's failure to cooperate with the insurer relieved the insurer of its obligation to provide coverage.
Lumbermens sought contribution from State Farm for a personal injury judgment it paid on behalf of its insured, Ray Dalton. Lumbermens argued State Fa…
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 Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Here insurance responsibility for one Ray Dalton was sought to be impressed upon State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and Dalton. The coverage was asserted to procure contribution from State Farm towards reimbursement of Lumbermens for its full satisfaction of a personal injury judgment against Dalton and others. It had been granted Gertrude Southern by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Virginia on December 18, 1961, in an automobile collision case against Walter and Franklin Crigger, who were responsible for one car’s operation, and Ray Dalton, the driver of the other vehicle. The District Court rejected Lumbermens’ suit, as do we.
This decision was a resolution of the issue directed on remand of the first ap peal in this case, Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co., 867 F. 2d 250, 255 (4 Cir. 1966). There we held that State Farm was Ray Dalton’s insurance carrier, and liable to Lumbermens for contribution, but subject to State Farm’s forfeiture defense. This was that the insured had not complied with the policy’s demand of notice to and cooperation with the insurer, thus cancelling any protection under its terms.
With comprehensive findings and upon sound conclusions, the District Judge refused Lumbermens’ claim. He determined that State Farm’s insured had flagrantly denied the insurer the cooperation requisite to qualify for the benefits of the policy. We affirm upon the District Court’s opinion, Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co. v. Harleysville Mutual Cas. Co., 287 F.Supp. 932 (W.D. Va.1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dixie Mach. Welding & Metal Works, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Boilermakers, 867 F.2d 250 (5th Cir. 1989)