Kesler v. Tate
Opinions
Appeal from the denial of a motion by Transnational to intervene as a defendant allegedly to protect its rights in an action brought by Kesler, its insured, against defendants, alleged uninsured motorist tort-feasors, — where both plaintiff and defendants resisted the motion. Affirmed with costs to plaintiff and defendants.
The only substantial factual difference between this case and our recent case of Christensen v. Peterson,1 so far as pertinent to the issue here, is that there the plaintiff attempted to join its carrier as defendant while here the carrier attempted to join itself as such. No point is made in the brief on appeal as to any reason for a different conclusion based on such distinction, we can see no such reason therefor, and consequently we conclude that the Christensen case is dispositive here, recognizing that there may be some division in the authorities.2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
502 P.2d 565 (Kesler v. Tate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.