TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dairyland Insurance Company v. Charles P. Frith, Morris H. Frith, Sr.

DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles P. FRITH, Morris H. Frith, Sr., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Frith, 419 F.2d 1325 (5th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 7, 1970
Docket
No. 27415
Judges
Bell, Ainsworth, Carswell
Citations
419 F.2d 13251970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11326

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Dairyland Insurance Company appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing its petition for a declaratory judgment. This petition requested a declaration of the rights and other legal relations of the insurer and appellees with respect to a public liability insurance policy Dairyland had issued. Two questions of Georgia law were presented: (1) whether the coverage of the Dairyr land policy extended to an action brought by a third person against some of the appellees in a Georgia state court, and (2) whether Dairyland had a duty to defend against that action. On the particular facts of this case, we conclude that the District Court exercised a reasonable discretion under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 , 2202 (1964), in declining to decide the question of coverage.

See, e. g., Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111, 112 , 82 S.Ct. 580, 582 , 7 L.Ed.2d 604 (1962); Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. Marshall, 5 Cir., 1967, 381 F.2d 661, 663 . For the reasons of comity well expressed by the District Judge, we therefore affirm the judgment. Equitable considerations, however, require that we modify the judgment to this extent: By defending the state court action Dairyland is in no way to be denied the right to reserve the question of coverage and is not to be deemed estopped from so doing. We expressly reserve that right to Dairy- *1326 land under the circumstances presented here. Each side to this case will bear its own costs.

Affirmed as modified.

How later courts describe this case

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

1970: 11990: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pacific Indemnity Company v. Acel Delivery Service, Inc.432 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1970)
  2. Allstate Insurance v. Best728 F. Supp. 1263 (D.S.C. 1990)

Most recent

  1. Allstate Insurance v. Best728 F. Supp. 1263 (D.S.C. 1990)
  2. Pacific Indemnity Company v. Acel Delivery Service, Inc.432 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1970)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Pub. Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111 (1962) 381
Amerada Petroleum Corp. v. Marshall, 381 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1967) 49

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