Schmidt v. Travelers Insurance

90 A. 653, 244 Pa. 286, 1914 Pa. LEXIS 759
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 23, 1914
DocketAppeal, No. 175
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 90 A. 653 (Schmidt v. Travelers Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schmidt v. Travelers Insurance, 90 A. 653, 244 Pa. 286, 1914 Pa. LEXIS 759 (Pa. 1914).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Fell,

The defendant, The Travelers’ Insurance Company, issued to the plaintiff, the C. Schmidt & Sons Brewing Company, a policy to indemnify it to the extent of $5,000, against loss by reason of liability imposed by law upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries accidentally suffered by any person by the maintenance and use of certain automobiles specified in the policy. The policy provided, “F. The Assured, upon the occurrence of an accident, shall give immediate written notice thereof to the Company, or to its duly authorized Agent, with the fullest information obtainable. He shall give like notice with full particulars of [288]*288any claim made on account of such accident. The Assured shall not voluntarily assume any liability or settle any claim except at his own cost, nor incur any expense, nor interfere in any negotiation for settlement or legal proceeding without the consent of the Company previously given m writing. G. If thereafter any suit, even if groundless, is brought against the Assured to recover damages on account of such injuries as are covered by this policy, the Assured shall immediately forward to the Company every summons or other process served upon him, whereupon the Company will, at its own cost, defend against such suit in the name and on behalf of the Assured. The Company shall not be liable hereunder on account of one person or one accident in excess of the Limits of Liability applicable thereto as expressed in said Declarations, except for the expense incurred by the Company in defending suits brought against the Assured.” While the policy was in force an action was brought against the brewing company to recover for an injury caused by one of its automobiles and a judgment obtained against it for $9,200.

The present action was based on thé allegations that before the trial of the áction against the brewing company, a settlement could have been effected for $6,000 and that the officers of the brewing company requested the insurance company to make a settlement for that amount and offered to contribute $1,000 for the purpose, which with $5,000 to be paid by the insurance company would have made up the sum demanded; that the insurance company refused to make the settlement and went on to trial which resulted in a judgment in a larger amount against the brewing company, which it has paid and that the refusal of the insurance company to settle caused a loss to the brewing company of the difference between the judgment it paid and the insurance money it received less $1,000 which it was willing and offered to contribute to the settlement proposed.

The rights of the parties are to be determined by the [289]*289agreement into which they entered. By the provisions of the policy, the insurance company was obliged to defend at its own cost any action against the insured and the entire management of the defense was expressly entrusted to it and the insured was forbidden to settle any claim or to interfere in any negotiations for settlement or in any legal proceeding against it. The insurer was under no obligation to pay in advance of trial and the decision whether to settle or to try was committed to it. The plain words of the policy have no other meaning.

The judgment in favor of the defendant on the demurrer was properly entered and it is affirmed.

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

Related

Lehman v. O'Malley
D. Alaska, 2024
Toy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
928 A.2d 186 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
ACandS, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
764 F.2d 968 (Third Circuit, 1985)
LaRocca v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
329 F. Supp. 163 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
Cowden v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
134 A.2d 223 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1957)
Cowden v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
9 Pa. D. & C.2d 1 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1955)
Indemnity Ins. v. Eazor
71 Pa. D. & C. 626 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Ins.
42 Pa. D. & C. 674 (Philadelphia County Municipal Court, 1941)
Norwood v. Travelers Insurance Co.
284 N.W. 785 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1939)
Johnson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.
187 A. 788 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1936)
McDonald v. Royal Indemnity Insurance
162 A. 620 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1932)
Tiger River Pine Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
161 S.E. 491 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)
Davis v. Maryland Casualty Co.
133 So. 769 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1931)
Georgia Casualty Co. v. Cotton Mills Products Co.
132 So. 73 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1931)
St. Joseph Transfer & Storage Co. v. Employers Indemnity Corp.
23 S.W.2d 215 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1930)
G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co.
295 S.W. 257 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Fidelity and Casualty Company v. Stewart Dry Goods
271 S.W. 444 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
Hollings v. Brown
80 So. 792 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Kingan & Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
115 N.E. 348 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A. 653, 244 Pa. 286, 1914 Pa. LEXIS 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-travelers-insurance-pa-1914.