TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 411 F.2d 605 (4th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 3, 1969
Docket
No. 13084_1
Judges
Winter, Craven, Butzner
Citations
411 F.2d 6051969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12978

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Before us is a motion for summary affirmance, filed by American Mutual, of the judgment it obtained against State Farm for contribution of one-half of the amounts paid by American Mutual to satisfy state court judgments obtained against its insured. The state court judgments for death, personal injury and property damage resulting from a three-vehicle accident had been returned jointly against American Mutual’s insured and State Farm’s insured. State Farm has filed an answer to the motion.

The principal issue in the suit between the two insurers was whether State Farm’s insured had failed to give it notice of the accident as soon as practicable, thereby violating the terms of the policy so as to release it from liability thereon. The district judge, after full trial, found that, notwithstanding a delay in reporting the accident of 117 days, State Farm’s insured reasonably believed that he was *606 not involved in the accident and hence, under the law of Virginia, he had not breached the policy.

The issue raised on appeal is a narrow one. The parties have filed complete briefs and State Farm has filed an extensive appendix. We see nothing to be gained from oral argument. We conclude that the district judge’s finding that State Farm’s insured reasonably believed that he was not involved in the accident was not clearly erroneous, and we do not disagree with the district judge’s informed prediction that under the law of Virginia the insured’s notice to his insurer would not be deemed untimely, especially since he gave notice within three hours of the first claim of civil liability made on him. We grant the motion.

The judgment of the district court * is Affirmed.

* American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 293 F.Supp. 256 (W.D.Va. 1968).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1974: 11987: 11991: 119742026peak 1974 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. V/O Exportkhleb v. M/V Anpa773 F. Supp. 832 (E.D. La. 1991)
  2. West American Insurance v. Bank of Isle of Wight673 F. Supp. 760 (E.D. Va. 1987)
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Royal Indemnity Co.374 F. Supp. 495 (S.D.W. Va 1974)

Most recent

  1. V/O Exportkhleb v. M/V Anpa773 F. Supp. 832 (E.D. La. 1991)
  2. West American Insurance v. Bank of Isle of Wight673 F. Supp. 760 (E.D. Va. 1987)
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Royal Indemnity Co.374 F. Supp. 495 (S.D.W. Va 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 293 F. Supp. 256 (W.D. Va. 1968) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list