Murphy v. Keane

Connecticut Superior Court

Murphy v. Keane

227 A.2d 94, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 463, 26 Conn. Supp. 463, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 178

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1967

DocketFile 109846

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.2d 94 (Murphy v. Keane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. Keane, 227 A.2d 94, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 463, 26 Conn. Supp. 463, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 178 (Colo. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Devlin, J.

The question presented is whether an insurer who has disclaimed liability under a policy of insurance can be impleaded under General Statutes § 52-102a.

Our statute was apparently modeled after Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The statute provides in part: “A defendant in any civil action may move the court for permission as a third-party plaintiff to serve a writ, summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him.” The purpose of the rule is to facilitate litigation, to save costs, to bring all of the litigants into one proceeding, and to dispose of an entire matter without the expense and labor of many suits and many trials.

Under federal decisions, the application of the rule to the insurer seems to be well settled. Jordan v. Stephens, 7 F.R.D. 140; Rosalis v. Universal Distributors, Inc., 21 F.R.D. 169; Knapp v. Hankins, 106 F. Sup. 43. There is no logical reason why this court should not adopt the same procedure.

Motion granted.

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

Devlin, J.

The question presented is whether an insurer who has disclaimed liability under a policy of insurance can be impleaded under General Statutes § 52-102a.

Our statute was apparently modeled after Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The statute provides in part: “A defendant in any civil action may move the court for permission as a third-party plaintiff to serve a writ, summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him.” The purpose of the rule is to facilitate litigation, to save costs, to bring all of the litigants into one proceeding, and to dispose of an entire matter without the expense and labor of many suits and many trials.

Under federal decisions, the application of the rule to the insurer seems to be well settled. Jordan v. Stephens, 7 F.R.D. 140; Rosalis v. Universal Distributors, Inc., 21 F.R.D. 169; Knapp v. Hankins, 106 F. Sup. 43. There is no logical reason why this court should not adopt the same procedure.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.2d 94, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 463, 26 Conn. Supp. 463, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-keane-connsuperct-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack