Daniela Del Rosario Gonzalez-Altiery, Etc. v. Globe Indemnity Company

First Circuit

Daniela Del Rosario Gonzalez-Altiery, Etc. v. Globe Indemnity Company

287 F.2d 400, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1961

Docket5726_1

StatusPublished

This text of 287 F.2d 400 (Daniela Del Rosario Gonzalez-Altiery, Etc. v. Globe Indemnity Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniela Del Rosario Gonzalez-Altiery, Etc. v. Globe Indemnity Company, 287 F.2d 400, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5184 (1st Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Guerra v. Ortiz, 1950, 71 P.R.R. 574, affirmed sub nom. Agustin v. Ortiz, 1 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 496, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that a minor could not sue its parent for personal injury resulting from an accident caused by the parent’s negligence. There was nothing unusual, and certainly nothing unconstitutional, in this. Cf. Luster v. Luster, 1938, 299 Mass. 480, 13 N.E.2d 438. In the present case the court held that the Puerto Rico direct-action statute permitting suits against an insurer without joining the insured, cf. Aponte v. American Surety Co. of New York, 1 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 678, did not permit the minor to recover from its parent’s insurer. A casualty insurer is, essentially, an indemnitor. We see no reason to reverse the court’s decision as to local law, nor to review its interpretation of its local statute.

Judgment will enter affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.

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

PER CURIAM.

In Guerra v. Ortiz, 1950, 71 P.R.R. 574, affirmed sub nom. Agustin v. Ortiz, 1 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 496, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that a minor could not sue its parent for personal injury resulting from an accident caused by the parent’s negligence. There was nothing unusual, and certainly nothing unconstitutional, in this. Cf. Luster v. Luster, 1938, 299 Mass. 480, 13 N.E.2d 438. In the present case the court held that the Puerto Rico direct-action statute permitting suits against an insurer without joining the insured, cf. Aponte v. American Surety Co. of New York, 1 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 678, did not permit the minor to recover from its parent’s insurer. A casualty insurer is, essentially, an indemnitor. We see no reason to reverse the court’s decision as to local law, nor to review its interpretation of its local statute.

Judgment will enter affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 F.2d 400, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniela-del-rosario-gonzalez-altiery-etc-v-globe-indemnity-company-ca1-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack