Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Carll & Ramagosa, Inc.

Third Circuit

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Carll & Ramagosa, Inc.

365 F.2d 303, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1411

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 24, 1966

DocketNo. 15636

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 365 F.2d 303 (Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Carll & Ramagosa, Inc.) 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

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Carll & Ramagosa, Inc., 365 F.2d 303, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1411 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil action in which the appellant sought an adjudication as to its possible obligations under a comprehensive liability policy issued to the appellee Carll and Ramagosa, Inc. The matter came before the court below on cross motions for summary judgment. The court, construing the policy, held that the appellant was under an obligation to defend certain tort actions and entered a partial summary judgment accordingly. The claims of the respective appellees as to the ultimate liability of the appellant were expressly reserved for determination after the tort actions had been litigated.

It is clear that the judgment of the lower court lacks the finality requisite to the appellate jurisdiction of this court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Marino v. Nevitt, 311 F.2d 406 (3rd Cir. 1963); Funkhouser v. City of Newark, 312 F.2d 383 (3rd Cir. 1963). This appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil action in which the appellant sought an adjudication as to its possible obligations under a comprehensive liability policy issued to the appellee Carll and Ramagosa, Inc. The matter came before the court below on cross motions for summary judgment. The court, construing the policy, held that the appellant was under an obligation to defend certain tort actions and entered a partial summary judgment accordingly. The claims of the respective appellees as to the ultimate liability of the appellant were expressly reserved for determination after the tort actions had been litigated.

It is clear that the judgment of the lower court lacks the finality requisite to the appellate jurisdiction of this court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Marino v. Nevitt, 311 F.2d 406 (3rd Cir. 1963); Funkhouser v. City of Newark, 312 F.2d 383 (3rd Cir. 1963). This appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 F.2d 303, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidelity-casualty-co-v-carll-ramagosa-inc-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack