Mutual Boiler and MacHinery Insurance Company v. Reynolds Metals Company
This text of 352 F.2d 520 (Mutual Boiler and MacHinery Insurance Company v. Reynolds Metals Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court refusing to dismiss Reynolds Metals Company’s suit for failure to join two fire insurance companies as joint defendants.
It being clear that the present suit can go to judgment on an “accident” policy of the named defendant without any legal adverse effect or any serious practical adverse effect on the interests of the two fire insurance carriers if they are not made parties, and it being equally clear that the court can render full and complete justice between the two parties to this litigation without such joinder, the fire insurance companies are not indispensable parties as claimed by appellant. State of Washington v. United States, (9 Cir.) 87 F.2d 421, 427-428.
It appears that the joinder of the two other insurance carriers as parties, as contended for by the defendant-appellant, would destroy diversity jurisdiction. In the absence of a determination that they are indispensable parties, therefore, the court should be extremely reluctant to require that they be added. See the excellent discussion of this troubled subject of joinder in Wright, Fed. Courts, Section 70, pages 259-63 (1963).
The order of the trial court appealed from is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
352 F.2d 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-boiler-and-machinery-insurance-company-v-reynolds-metals-company-ca5-1965.