Hartford Fire Insurance v. Lewis

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Lewis

16 Conn. Supp. 90, 1948 Conn. Super. LEXIS 100

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

DecidedDecember 28, 1948

DocketFile No. 40467

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Conn. Supp. 90 (Hartford Fire Insurance v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Lewis, 16 Conn. Supp. 90, 1948 Conn. Super. LEXIS 100 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

FITZGERALD, J.

Plaintiff by its complaint is seeking to recover of the defendant money it has been obliged to pay Edith Conte under a collision insurance policy because of a collision between the Conte car and the defendant’s car on January 23, 1948. The complaint recites the usual allegations of negligence. It sufficiently appears that the plaintiff brings suit as assignee and subrogee of its insured. The defendant’s motion to have the plaintiff’s insured cited in as a coplaintiff to respond to a proposed counterclaim of the defendant is resisted.

Argument of counsel is centered on the memorandum of the trial court in National Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 15 Conn. Sup. 275. In that case the status of the plaintiff on its complaint was-comparable to that of the plaintiff in the instant case. The defendant filed a cross-complaint directed solely against the plaintiff insurer, and the court sustained the plaintiff’s demurrer thereto. Here the defendant seeks to have the plaintiff’s insured made a coplaintiff to the end that a counterclaim may be directed against her for damages. Hence the conclusion reached on the demurrer of the plaintiff insurer in the case cited is not controlling on the motion presented in the instant case for reasons stated in that memorandum.

' The distinction drawn by the defendant here between the two situations is that in the case cited the defendant was seeking a recovery against the plaintiff insurer under the cross-complaint, whereas in the instant case the defendant seeks a recovery only against the plaintiff’s insured under a proposed counterclaim.

[91]*91The distinction is pertinent. Whenever possible all issues arising out of a single episode or transaction should be litigated at the same time.

Motion granted. Order of citation to be filled in by the clerk.

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

FITZGERALD, J.

Plaintiff by its complaint is seeking to recover of the defendant money it has been obliged to pay Edith Conte under a collision insurance policy because of a collision between the Conte car and the defendant’s car on January 23, 1948. The complaint recites the usual allegations of negligence. It sufficiently appears that the plaintiff brings suit as assignee and subrogee of its insured. The defendant’s motion to have the plaintiff’s insured cited in as a coplaintiff to respond to a proposed counterclaim of the defendant is resisted.

Argument of counsel is centered on the memorandum of the trial court in National Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 15 Conn. Sup. 275. In that case the status of the plaintiff on its complaint was-comparable to that of the plaintiff in the instant case. The defendant filed a cross-complaint directed solely against the plaintiff insurer, and the court sustained the plaintiff’s demurrer thereto. Here the defendant seeks to have the plaintiff’s insured made a coplaintiff to the end that a counterclaim may be directed against her for damages. Hence the conclusion reached on the demurrer of the plaintiff insurer in the case cited is not controlling on the motion presented in the instant case for reasons stated in that memorandum.

' The distinction drawn by the defendant here between the two situations is that in the case cited the defendant was seeking a recovery against the plaintiff insurer under the cross-complaint, whereas in the instant case the defendant seeks a recovery only against the plaintiff’s insured under a proposed counterclaim.

[91]*91The distinction is pertinent. Whenever possible all issues arising out of a single episode or transaction should be litigated at the same time.

Motion granted. Order of citation to be filled in by the clerk.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Conn. Supp. 90, 1948 Conn. Super. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-fire-insurance-v-lewis-pactcompl-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack