Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. The Vanderbilt University

Sixth Circuit

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. The Vanderbilt University

218 F.2d 818, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 1954

Docket12092

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 218 F.2d 818 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. The Vanderbilt University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. The Vanderbilt University, 218 F.2d 818, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3286 (6th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that from the facts as found by the District Judge, reported at Vanderbilt University v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 109 F.Supp. 565, which are not clearly erroneous and are accepted on this appeal, the appellant did not act in good faith toward the appellee, its insured, in its efforts to negotiate a settlement in the causes pending against it, the .defense of which the appellant had undertaken under the, provisions of the policy it had issued to the appellee, which causes could have been settled by it within the policy limit, but by reason whereof said causes resulted in judgments in excess of the policy limit, for which excess the District Judge entered judgment against the appellant;.

It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed. Aycock Hosiery Mills v. Maryland Casualty Co., 157 Tenn. 559, 11 S.W.2d 889; Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Norris, 35. Tenn.App. *819 657, 250 S.W.2d 785, certiorari denied June 7, 1952; Noshey v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 68 F.2d 808; American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Roberts, 6 Cir., 186 F.2d 921.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case was heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that from the facts as found by the District Judge, reported at Vanderbilt University v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 109 F.Supp. 565, which are not clearly erroneous and are accepted on this appeal, the appellant did not act in good faith toward the appellee, its insured, in its efforts to negotiate a settlement in the causes pending against it, the .defense of which the appellant had undertaken under the, provisions of the policy it had issued to the appellee, which causes could have been settled by it within the policy limit, but by reason whereof said causes resulted in judgments in excess of the policy limit, for which excess the District Judge entered judgment against the appellant;.

It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed. Aycock Hosiery Mills v. Maryland Casualty Co., 157 Tenn. 559, 11 S.W.2d 889; Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Norris, 35. Tenn.App. *819 657, 250 S.W.2d 785, certiorari denied June 7, 1952; Noshey v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 68 F.2d 808; American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Roberts, 6 Cir., 186 F.2d 921.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F.2d 818, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-accident-indemnity-company-v-the-vanderbilt-university-ca6-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack