Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Swingen Construction Company, Inc., and Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc.

545 F.2d 1100, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6406
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 4, 1976
Docket76-1204 and 76-1306
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 545 F.2d 1100 (Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Swingen Construction Company, Inc., and Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Swingen Construction Company, Inc., and Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc., 545 F.2d 1100, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6406 (8th Cir. 1976).

Opinion

*1101 PER CURIAM.

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford) against its insured, Skjonsby Truck Line (Skjonsby) to determine the limits of Hartford’s liability to Skjonsby under a cargo insurance policy. The claim on the policy resulted from an accident which damaged a crane being transported intrastate by Skjonsby for Swingen Construction Company (Swingen). The sole question presented to the trial court was whether or not Hartford must pay, under the terms of the policy and North Dakota law, the reasonable value of the loss of use of the machine while it was being repaired, in addition to the cost of repairs for which Hartford admitted liability-

The trial court, the Honorable Paul Benson, found that Hartford was liable only for the cost of repairs. Swingen and Skjonsby appealed alleging that loss of use damages were recoverable under the policy pursuant to Section 8-09-01 of the North Dakota Century Code. We disagree with this contention and affirm on the basis of Judge Benson’s well-reasoned opinion. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Swingen Construction Co., Inc., 420 F.Supp. 500 (D.N.D., 1976).

In affirming on the basis of Judge Benson's opinion we do not pass judgment on the question of whether or not the damages to the crane should have been measured by a different standard, i. e., difference in before and after value, since that issue was not presented to Judge Benson.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Burns v. Nimmo
545 F. Supp. 544 (N.D. Iowa, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
545 F.2d 1100, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-fire-insurance-company-v-swingen-construction-company-inc-and-ca8-1976.