Hanover Insurance Company v. The Travelers Insurance Company

Second Circuit

Hanover Insurance Company v. The Travelers Insurance Company

355 F.2d 552, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7420

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1966

Docket29880_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 355 F.2d 552 (Hanover Insurance Company v. The Travelers Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanover Insurance Company v. The Travelers Insurance Company, 355 F.2d 552, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7420 (2d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover) appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant-appellee The Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers). In this diversity action, Hanover sought indemnification from Travelers as a result of a $20,000 settlement of a Connecticut state court negligence action brought by Muriel Davis against New England Motors, Inc. (New England), Hanover’s insured, Stothart Motors (Stothart), Traveler’s insured and Donald De Sola whom Davis alleged was the agent of either or both of New England and Stothart.

Hanover appeared by counsel for New England and De Sola. Travelers appeared only for Stothart but not for De Sola who it claimed was not insured under its policy. De Sola apparently disappeared, Hanover withdrew its appearance for him and a default judgment was entered against De Sola. During the third day of the state court trial, the case was settled for $20,000, Hanover agreeing to pay $15,000 and Travelers $5,000.,

The trial court here found that Hanover “paid the $15,000 because it appeared extremely probable that New England Motors, Inc., would be held liable for the injuries to the Davis woman caused by the negligence of its agent and servant De Sola * * * ” It also found that Travelers “paid $5,000 towards settlement to avoid ‘further trial and appellate costs and to avoid further litigation.’ ” During settlement negotiations of the Davis case, there was no intimation that any right of indemnification by Hanover was reserved as a condition of its $15,-000 payment. Counsel for the respective insurance companies undoubtedly based *553 their contributions upon their judgment as to the chances of liability. Upon the facts disclosed, there may well have been a wide disparity in such chances. The trial court also accurately concluded that Hanover “waived and relinquished any rights, if any, to indemnity or contribution from the defendants and is estopped from a recovery in this action; *

Hanover’s appellate theory of subrogation is ingenious but is not sound in the light of the facts.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover) appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant-appellee The Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers). In this diversity action, Hanover sought indemnification from Travelers as a result of a $20,000 settlement of a Connecticut state court negligence action brought by Muriel Davis against New England Motors, Inc. (New England), Hanover’s insured, Stothart Motors (Stothart), Traveler’s insured and Donald De Sola whom Davis alleged was the agent of either or both of New England and Stothart.

Hanover appeared by counsel for New England and De Sola. Travelers appeared only for Stothart but not for De Sola who it claimed was not insured under its policy. De Sola apparently disappeared, Hanover withdrew its appearance for him and a default judgment was entered against De Sola. During the third day of the state court trial, the case was settled for $20,000, Hanover agreeing to pay $15,000 and Travelers $5,000.,

The trial court here found that Hanover “paid the $15,000 because it appeared extremely probable that New England Motors, Inc., would be held liable for the injuries to the Davis woman caused by the negligence of its agent and servant De Sola * * * ” It also found that Travelers “paid $5,000 towards settlement to avoid ‘further trial and appellate costs and to avoid further litigation.’ ” During settlement negotiations of the Davis case, there was no intimation that any right of indemnification by Hanover was reserved as a condition of its $15,-000 payment. Counsel for the respective insurance companies undoubtedly based *553 their contributions upon their judgment as to the chances of liability. Upon the facts disclosed, there may well have been a wide disparity in such chances. The trial court also accurately concluded that Hanover “waived and relinquished any rights, if any, to indemnity or contribution from the defendants and is estopped from a recovery in this action; *

Hanover’s appellate theory of subrogation is ingenious but is not sound in the light of the facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F.2d 552, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanover-insurance-company-v-the-travelers-insurance-company-ca2-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack