Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Portage Bituminous Company

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Portage Bituminous Co., 187 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1951)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1951-02-05
Topic: estate-planning

PER CURIAM. In this cause, brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the appellant insurance company sought a declaratory judgment against The Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and the Home Indemnity Company of New York to determine their duty to defend its assured, Portage Bituminous Company, in an action brought against the assured by a railway company in the Common Pleas Court of Summit County, Ohio; And it appearing that the motion of appellant for summary judgment was denied by the United States District Court for the reason that a declaration of the duty of the two other insurance companies to defend the state court action would involve decision upon one of the principal factual issues in the state court action; Upon consideration of the record and the oral arguments and briefs of the attorneys in this, cause, we find that there was no abuse of discretionary power by the United States District Court in its denial of the motion for summary judgment; Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal entered May 19, 1950, is affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Portage Bituminous Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. FIDELITY GUARANTY v. PORTAGE BITUMINOUS,187 F.2d 335(6th Cir. 1951)

UNITED STATES FIDELITY GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. PORTAGE

BITUMINOUS COMPANY et al., Appellee.

No. 11209.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

February 5, 1951.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; Paul Jones, Judge.

Dwight Parsons, Akron, Ohio (Buckingham, Doolittle Burroughs, Akron, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant.

Frank P. Kaufmann, Akron, Ohio and C.M. Horn, Cleveland, Ohio (Englebeck, Cotton Kaufmann, Akron, Ohio, Squire, Sanders Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, Wise, Roetzel, Maxon, Kelly Andress and Slabaugh, Guinther, Jeter Pflueger, all of Akron, Ohio, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter Stewart, Cleveland, Ohio, and Hartz Hartz, Akron, Ohio, of counsel), for appellee.Page 336

Before SIMONS, MARTIN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this cause, brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the appellant insurance company sought a declaratory judgment against The Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and the Home Indemnity Company of New York to determine their duty to defend its assured, Portage Bituminous Company, in an action brought against the assured by a railway company in the Common Pleas Court of Summit County, Ohio;

And it appearing that the motion of appellant for summary judgment was denied by the United States District Court for the reason that a declaration of the duty of the two other insurance companies to defend the state court action would involve decision upon one of the principal factual issues in the state court action;

Upon consideration of the record and the oral arguments and briefs of the attorneys in this cause, we find that there was no abuse of discretionary power by the United States District Court in its denial of the motion for summary judgment;

Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal entered May 19, 1950, is affirmed.Page 427