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

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided August 24, 1966·No. No. 15636·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

Pincite

365 F.2d 303 (Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Carll & Ramagosa, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related