American Underwriters, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance

S.D. Indiana

American Underwriters, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance

496 F. Supp. 889, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13391

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana

DecidedSeptember 11, 1980

DocketNo. IP 80-448-C

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 496 F. Supp. 889 (American Underwriters, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Underwriters, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance, 496 F. Supp. 889, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13391 (S.D. Ind. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

STECKLER, District Judge.

This matter*is before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss ■ on the basis that (1) plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the action and (2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, American Underwriters, Inc. and American Interinsurance Exchange, seek pro rata recoupment of amounts paid out in settlement of a property damage claim involving a vehicle allegedly insured at the time of the accident by both American Interinsurance Exchange and Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance Company.

It is established that, under Indiana law, one insurer may seek pro rata contribution from another insurer when the driver of a vehicle is both an employee of the owner of the vehicle and the lessee of the vehicle. See Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 309 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1962). Since it is alleged that the defendant issued a policy in effect at the time of the accident which covered the same “interest” as did plaintiff’s policy, i. e., the property damage caused by the insured vehicle, the plaintiffs have standing to seek a pro rata contribution from the defendant.

The defendant further contends that there is no diversity of citizenship since 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) provides that the insurer shall be deemed to possess the citizenship of the insured in a “direct action” wherein the insured is not joined as a defendant. The term “direct action,” however, does not include with its meaning actions by one insurer against another where liability is not sought to be imposed by reason of the insured’s conduct. See White v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 356 F.2d 746 (1st Cir. 1966); Lank v. Federal Ins. Co., 309 F.Supp. 349 (D.Del.1970); Walker [891]*891v. Firemans Fund Insurance Co., 260 F.Supp. 95 (D.Mont.1966). Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ claim concerns contribution on the respective policies rather than liability due to the insured’s conduct, the “direct action” provision of § 1332(c) is inapplicable.

By reason of the foregoing, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

STECKLER, District Judge.

This matter*is before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss ■ on the basis that (1) plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the action and (2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, American Underwriters, Inc. and American Interinsurance Exchange, seek pro rata recoupment of amounts paid out in settlement of a property damage claim involving a vehicle allegedly insured at the time of the accident by both American Interinsurance Exchange and Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance Company.

It is established that, under Indiana law, one insurer may seek pro rata contribution from another insurer when the driver of a vehicle is both an employee of the owner of the vehicle and the lessee of the vehicle. See Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 309 F.2d 283 (7th Cir. 1962). Since it is alleged that the defendant issued a policy in effect at the time of the accident which covered the same “interest” as did plaintiff’s policy, i. e., the property damage caused by the insured vehicle, the plaintiffs have standing to seek a pro rata contribution from the defendant.

The defendant further contends that there is no diversity of citizenship since 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) provides that the insurer shall be deemed to possess the citizenship of the insured in a “direct action” wherein the insured is not joined as a defendant. The term “direct action,” however, does not include with its meaning actions by one insurer against another where liability is not sought to be imposed by reason of the insured’s conduct. See White v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 356 F.2d 746 (1st Cir. 1966); Lank v. Federal Ins. Co., 309 F.Supp. 349 (D.Del.1970); Walker [891]*891v. Firemans Fund Insurance Co., 260 F.Supp. 95 (D.Mont.1966). Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ claim concerns contribution on the respective policies rather than liability due to the insured’s conduct, the “direct action” provision of § 1332(c) is inapplicable.

By reason of the foregoing, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F. Supp. 889, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-underwriters-inc-v-auto-owners-mutual-insurance-insd-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack