American Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Fourth Circuit

American Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

411 F.2d 605, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12978

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1969

Docket13084_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 605 (American Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 411 F.2d 605, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12978 (4th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Before us is a motion for summary affirmance, filed by American Mutual, of the judgment it obtained against State Farm for contribution of one-half of the amounts paid by American Mutual to satisfy state court judgments obtained against its insured. The state court judgments for death, personal injury and property damage resulting from a three-vehicle accident had been returned jointly against American Mutual’s insured and State Farm’s insured. State Farm has filed an answer to the motion.

The principal issue in the suit between the two insurers was whether State Farm’s insured had failed to give it notice of the accident as soon as practicable, thereby violating the terms of the policy so as to release it from liability thereon. The district judge, after full trial, found that, notwithstanding a delay in reporting the accident of 117 days, State Farm’s insured reasonably believed that he was *606 not involved in the accident and hence, under the law of Virginia, he had not breached the policy.

The issue raised on appeal is a narrow one. The parties have filed complete briefs and State Farm has filed an extensive appendix. We see nothing to be gained from oral argument. We conclude that the district judge’s finding that State Farm’s insured reasonably believed that he was not involved in the accident was not clearly erroneous, and we do not disagree with the district judge’s informed prediction that under the law of Virginia the insured’s notice to his insurer would not be deemed untimely, especially since he gave notice within three hours of the first claim of civil liability made on him. We grant the motion.

The judgment of the district court * is

Affirmed.

*

American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 293 F.Supp. 256 (W.D.Va. 1968).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Before us is a motion for summary affirmance, filed by American Mutual, of the judgment it obtained against State Farm for contribution of one-half of the amounts paid by American Mutual to satisfy state court judgments obtained against its insured. The state court judgments for death, personal injury and property damage resulting from a three-vehicle accident had been returned jointly against American Mutual’s insured and State Farm’s insured. State Farm has filed an answer to the motion.

The principal issue in the suit between the two insurers was whether State Farm’s insured had failed to give it notice of the accident as soon as practicable, thereby violating the terms of the policy so as to release it from liability thereon. The district judge, after full trial, found that, notwithstanding a delay in reporting the accident of 117 days, State Farm’s insured reasonably believed that he was *606 not involved in the accident and hence, under the law of Virginia, he had not breached the policy.

The issue raised on appeal is a narrow one. The parties have filed complete briefs and State Farm has filed an extensive appendix. We see nothing to be gained from oral argument. We conclude that the district judge’s finding that State Farm’s insured reasonably believed that he was not involved in the accident was not clearly erroneous, and we do not disagree with the district judge’s informed prediction that under the law of Virginia the insured’s notice to his insurer would not be deemed untimely, especially since he gave notice within three hours of the first claim of civil liability made on him. We grant the motion.

The judgment of the district court * is

Affirmed.

*

American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 293 F.Supp. 256 (W.D.Va. 1968).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F.2d 605, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-mutual-liability-insurance-company-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-ca4-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack