Royal Indemnity Company, a Body Corporate of the State of New York v. Aetna Insurance Company, a Body Corporate of the State of Connecticut

Fourth Circuit

Royal Indemnity Company, a Body Corporate of the State of New York v. Aetna Insurance Company, a Body Corporate of the State of Connecticut

338 F.2d 700, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3822

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 20, 1964

Docket9621

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 338 F.2d 700 (Royal Indemnity Company, a Body Corporate of the State of New York v. Aetna Insurance Company, a Body Corporate of the State of Connecticut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Royal Indemnity Company, a Body Corporate of the State of New York v. Aetna Insurance Company, a Body Corporate of the State of Connecticut, 338 F.2d 700, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3822 (4th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In resolving this controversy between two automobile liability insurers, the District Court found that the offending automobile was owned by the dealer rather than the bank. The basic agreement between the dealer and the bank, under which the dealer’s sales were financed, was ambiguous as to the ownership of repossessed vehicles in the possession of the dealer. The basic agreement was susceptible of the construction that there was a conditional sale to the dealer of each repossessed vehicle delivered to it by the bank, as contended by the bank’s insurer. It was also susceptible to the construction that there was a consignment for sale of such vehicles, the contention of the dealer’s insurer.

To solve the problem, the District Court appropriately looked to the course of dealing between the parties. He *701 found there clear evidence supporting his finding that there had been a conditional sale of the particular vehicle and others similarly handled. The finding, not clearly erroneous, is binding.

Justification of the finding and the legal conclusions flowing from it clearly appear in the District Court’s opinion. * We affirm for the reasons stated there.

Affirmed.

*

Royal Indemnity Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, D.C., 231 F.Supp. 057.

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

PER CURIAM.

In resolving this controversy between two automobile liability insurers, the District Court found that the offending automobile was owned by the dealer rather than the bank. The basic agreement between the dealer and the bank, under which the dealer’s sales were financed, was ambiguous as to the ownership of repossessed vehicles in the possession of the dealer. The basic agreement was susceptible of the construction that there was a conditional sale to the dealer of each repossessed vehicle delivered to it by the bank, as contended by the bank’s insurer. It was also susceptible to the construction that there was a consignment for sale of such vehicles, the contention of the dealer’s insurer.

To solve the problem, the District Court appropriately looked to the course of dealing between the parties. He *701 found there clear evidence supporting his finding that there had been a conditional sale of the particular vehicle and others similarly handled. The finding, not clearly erroneous, is binding.

Justification of the finding and the legal conclusions flowing from it clearly appear in the District Court’s opinion. * We affirm for the reasons stated there.

Affirmed.

*

Royal Indemnity Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, D.C., 231 F.Supp. 057.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 F.2d 700, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-indemnity-company-a-body-corporate-of-the-state-of-new-york-v-aetna-ca4-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack