Robert Grant v. Sutorbilt Corporation

Fifth Circuit

Robert Grant v. Sutorbilt Corporation

343 F.2d 807, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6002

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1965

Docket21552_1

StatusPublished

This text of 343 F.2d 807 (Robert Grant v. Sutorbilt Corporation) 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.

Bluebook

Robert Grant v. Sutorbilt Corporation, 343 F.2d 807, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6002 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Grant, the plaintiff-appellant, sustained an injury while employed by Crescent Insulators, Inc. A direct action was then instituted against Travelers Insurance Company, the liability insurer of Crescent. Appellant’s theory of recovery was that he was injured by the negligence of one Charles Davis who allegedly was an “executive officer” of Crescent within the terms of the insurance policy in question. Davis served somewhat as the general manager of Crescent but was not an elected officer and had no authority to sign checks. The appellees, contending that appellant’s sole remedy was under the Louisiana workmen’s compensation statute, moved for summary judgment on the ground that Davis was not an “executive officer” within the terms of the policy. The trial court granted the motion and appellant brings this appeal.

The appellant contends that the question of whether or not Davis was an “executive officer” is factual in nature and should have been submitted to a jury for determination. This same contention was thoroughly discussed and rejected in Bruce v. Travelers Ins. Co., 266 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1959).

We are convinced that the ruling complained of was correct and we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Grant, the plaintiff-appellant, sustained an injury while employed by Crescent Insulators, Inc. A direct action was then instituted against Travelers Insurance Company, the liability insurer of Crescent. Appellant’s theory of recovery was that he was injured by the negligence of one Charles Davis who allegedly was an “executive officer” of Crescent within the terms of the insurance policy in question. Davis served somewhat as the general manager of Crescent but was not an elected officer and had no authority to sign checks. The appellees, contending that appellant’s sole remedy was under the Louisiana workmen’s compensation statute, moved for summary judgment on the ground that Davis was not an “executive officer” within the terms of the policy. The trial court granted the motion and appellant brings this appeal.

The appellant contends that the question of whether or not Davis was an “executive officer” is factual in nature and should have been submitted to a jury for determination. This same contention was thoroughly discussed and rejected in Bruce v. Travelers Ins. Co., 266 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1959).

We are convinced that the ruling complained of was correct and we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 F.2d 807, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-grant-v-sutorbilt-corporation-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack