Phoenix Finance Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Phoenix Finance Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 308, 4 Conn. Supp. 308, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 195

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 27, 1936

DocketFile #54366

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 308 (Phoenix Finance Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) 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

Phoenix Finance Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 308, 4 Conn. Supp. 308, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

*309 INGLIS, J.

The complaint in this action alleges in substance that on May 17, 1934, the defendant issued to the plaintiff its surety bond to protect it against loss by reason of embezzlement by the plaintiff’s employees which might occur during the term of the bond and that that bond carried a rider which was made a part of the bond itself whereby the defendant also agreed to protect the plaintiff against similar loss which might have occurred during the term of a previous bond issued by The Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company which loss might be discovered after the time limited in said prior bond for discovery of loss thereunder. It further alleges that there had been defalcations by an employee both after May 17, 1934, and also during the term of the prior bond which latter defalcations had not been discovered during the time limited in the former bond.

It is clear, therefore, that this action is not brought as claimed by the defendant under two separate bonds, that is the bond issued by the defendant and the bond issued by The Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company which had been assumed by the defendant. Rather it is an action brought upon a single contract to wit: the bond issued by the defendant plus the rider thereon. The complaint therefore states but a single cause of action and should not be separated.

The motion to separate is denied.

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

*309 INGLIS, J.

The complaint in this action alleges in substance that on May 17, 1934, the defendant issued to the plaintiff its surety bond to protect it against loss by reason of embezzlement by the plaintiff’s employees which might occur during the term of the bond and that that bond carried a rider which was made a part of the bond itself whereby the defendant also agreed to protect the plaintiff against similar loss which might have occurred during the term of a previous bond issued by The Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company which loss might be discovered after the time limited in said prior bond for discovery of loss thereunder. It further alleges that there had been defalcations by an employee both after May 17, 1934, and also during the term of the prior bond which latter defalcations had not been discovered during the time limited in the former bond.

It is clear, therefore, that this action is not brought as claimed by the defendant under two separate bonds, that is the bond issued by the defendant and the bond issued by The Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company which had been assumed by the defendant. Rather it is an action brought upon a single contract to wit: the bond issued by the defendant plus the rider thereon. The complaint therefore states but a single cause of action and should not be separated.

The motion to separate is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 308, 4 Conn. Supp. 308, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-finance-corp-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-connsuperct-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack