Charles W. Cousineau v. United States of America, Third-Party and v. Agricultural Insurance Company, Third-Party And

Third Circuit

Charles W. Cousineau v. United States of America, Third-Party and v. Agricultural Insurance Company, Third-Party And

493 F.2d 692, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10073

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 14, 1974

Docket71-2664

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 493 F.2d 692 (Charles W. Cousineau v. United States of America, Third-Party and v. Agricultural Insurance Company, Third-Party And) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles W. Cousineau v. United States of America, Third-Party and v. Agricultural Insurance Company, Third-Party And, 493 F.2d 692, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10073 (3d Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

FRED M. TAYLOR, District Judge:

Agricultural Insurance Company (Agricultural) issued a motor vehicle liability policy to Wesley B. Gibson, doing business as Continental Leasing Company as the named insured, from June 6, 1968 to June 6, 1969. A 1961 Plymouth automobile, owned by Gibson, was expressly included as one of the insured vehicles. The Plymouth was subsequently leased by Gibson to the United States Post Office for a period in excess of 30 consecutive days. In order to exempt the vehicle from licensing fees, it was registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles in the name of the Post Office.

On July 13, 1968, a Post Office employee, driving the Plymouth in the course of his employment, became involved in an accident with the plaintiff, Charles Cousineau. Plaintiff Cousineau brought an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The defendant and third-party plaintiff, United States of America, filed a third-party complaint against the third-party defendant Agricultural Insurance Company seeking a judgment for any damages it might become obligated to pay to plaintiff, plus reasonable attorney’s fees in defending plaintiff’s action.

The plaintiff’s action against the United States was compromised for $8,250.00 with the consent and approval of Agricultural and the matter went to trial on the third-party complaint. On April 9, 1971, the District Court entered a judgment in favor of the United States on its third-party complaint against Agricultural, and the insurance company appealed to this court from said judgment.

We believe the decision in this case is controlled by Metz v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 10 Cal.3d 45, 109 Cal.Rptr. 698, 513 P.2d 922 (1973) and, accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

OPINION

FRED M. TAYLOR, District Judge:

Agricultural Insurance Company (Agricultural) issued a motor vehicle liability policy to Wesley B. Gibson, doing business as Continental Leasing Company as the named insured, from June 6, 1968 to June 6, 1969. A 1961 Plymouth automobile, owned by Gibson, was expressly included as one of the insured vehicles. The Plymouth was subsequently leased by Gibson to the United States Post Office for a period in excess of 30 consecutive days. In order to exempt the vehicle from licensing fees, it was registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles in the name of the Post Office.

On July 13, 1968, a Post Office employee, driving the Plymouth in the course of his employment, became involved in an accident with the plaintiff, Charles Cousineau. Plaintiff Cousineau brought an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The defendant and third-party plaintiff, United States of America, filed a third-party complaint against the third-party defendant Agricultural Insurance Company seeking a judgment for any damages it might become obligated to pay to plaintiff, plus reasonable attorney’s fees in defending plaintiff’s action.

The plaintiff’s action against the United States was compromised for $8,250.00 with the consent and approval of Agricultural and the matter went to trial on the third-party complaint. On April 9, 1971, the District Court entered a judgment in favor of the United States on its third-party complaint against Agricultural, and the insurance company appealed to this court from said judgment.

We believe the decision in this case is controlled by Metz v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 10 Cal.3d 45, 109 Cal.Rptr. 698, 513 P.2d 922 (1973) and, accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 F.2d 692, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-w-cousineau-v-united-states-of-america-third-party-and-v-ca3-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack