Murphy v. Hopkins

6 Citing cases

  1. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tillman

    249 Miss. 141 (Miss. 1964)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that Mississippi will apply the substantive law of the state where the cause of action arose but its own rules of procedure

    III. The appellant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, has waived its rights to assert the defense of non-cooperation by its insured. American Surety Co. of New York v. Diamond, 1 N.Y.2d 594, 154 N.Y.S.2d 918, 136 N.E.2d 876; Ashland Window Housecleaning Co. v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, 53 N.Y.S.2d 677, 269 App. Div. 31; Cyr v. American Guarantee Liability Insurance Co., 242 F.2d 8; Della-Posta v. New York Casualty Co., 92 N.Y.S.2d 523; Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. v. Powers, 206 N.Y.S.2d 728; Karp v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 201 N.Y.S.2d 421; Lauritano v. American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co., 162 N.Y.S.2d 553; Lindsey v. Gulf Insurance Co. (La.), 7 So.2d 757; Messina v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., 207 N.Y.S.2d 76, 26 Misc.2d 1059; Murphy v. Hopkins, 68 S.D. 494, 4 N.W.2d 801; Orrback v. Preferred Accident Insurance Co. of New York, 237 N YS. 494, 227 App. Div. 311; Rivera v. Merchants Mutual Casualty Co., 210 N.Y.S.2d 577, 27 Misc.2d 139; Annos. 72 A.L.R. 1453, 98 A.L.R. 1468; McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York State Annotated, New York Insurance Law, Secs. 67, 143 (1). IV. Mississippi construction can be applied to the contract of insurance involved herein.

  2. Lodgenet Enter. Corp. v. American Inter. Spec. Lines Ins. Co.

    CIV 02-4051 (D.S.D. Sep. 29, 2003)

    Insureds have a duty to cooperate with an insurer's requests allowing a reasonable investigation of a claim. See Murphy v. Hopkins. et al., 4 N.W.2d 801. 803 (S.D. 19421. Prior to invoking the defense of breach of the cooperation clause in the policy, however, an insurer "must use reasonable diligence in obtaining cooperation from the insured."

  3. Sigler v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co.

    298 N.W.2d 792 (S.D. 1980)

    WOLLMAN, Chief Justice (dissenting). I would reverse the order granting summary judgment on the ground that the fact situation here is sufficiently analogous to the facts in Bruins v. Anderson, 73 S.D. 620, 47 N.W.2d 493 (1951), and Murphy v. Hopkins, 68 S.D. 494, 4 N.W.2d 801 (1942), to permit the use of the garnishment procedure. I do not agree that in the past this Court has strictly construed our garnishment statutes.

  4. Bruins v. Anderson

    73 S.D. 620 (S.D. 1951)   Cited 12 times
    In Bruins v. Anderson (1951), 73 S.D. 620, 47 N.W.2d 493, it was held that provisions of an automobile liability policy, prohibiting the regular and frequent use of the automobile beyond the area within a 50-mile radius of limits of the city or town where the automobile is principally garaged, would not relieve the insurer of liability because the vehicle was casually or incidentally used beyond such radius even though at the time of the accident the vehicle was beyond such radius.

    Appellant insurer has against the judgment creditor any defense it would have against the assured. Murphy v. Hopkins, 68 S.D. 494, 4 N.W.2d 801. The assured had at the time another policy in the Providence Washington Insurance Company indemnifying him against loss resulting from collision.

  5. Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co.

    321 P.2d 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    y Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Glorfield, 9 Cir., 216 F.2d 250; 8 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice 32, § 4689. 22 See cases collected 131 A.L.R. 1499, 1510. 23 45 C.J.S. Insurance § 933 b, p. 1059; 5A Am.Jur. 119, § 115. 24 Civ.Code, § 3300. 25 Arenson v. National Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co., 45 Cal.2d 81, 84, 286 P.2d 816; American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Glorfield, 9 Cir., 216 F.2d 250, 253. Cf. Henkel v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 140 Cal.App.2d 301, 305, 295 P.2d 80. 26 Civ.Code, § 3301. 27 See cases collected 49 A.L.R.2d 721. 28 Arenson v. National Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co., 45 Cal.2d 81, 84, 286 P.2d 816; O'Morrow v. Borad, 27 Cal.2d 794, 167 P.2d 483, 163 A.L.R. 894; Mercer Casualty Co. v. Lewis, 41 Cal.App.2d 918, 923, 108 P.2d 65; Ritchie v. Anchor Casualty Co., 135 Cal.App.2d 245, 258, 286 P.2d 1000. 29 Arenson v. National Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co., 45 Cal.2d 81, 286 P.2d 816; Greer-Robbins Co. v. Pacific Surety Co., 37 Cal.App. 540, 174 P. 110. 30 Murphy v. Hopkins, 68 S.D. 494, 4 N.W.2d 801, 805; Buquo v. Title Guar. & T. Co., 20 Tenn.App. 479, 100 S.W.2d 997, 999. 31 Grand Union Co. v. General Acc. etc. Corp., 254 App.Div. 274, 4 N.Y.S.2d 704, 711, affirmed 279 N.Y. 638, 18 N.E.2d 38. 32 Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Tri-State Transit Co., 190 Miss. 560, 1 So.2d 221, 225, 133 A.L.R. 1510; Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Ocean Ace. & G. Corp., D.C., 22 F.Supp. 686, 688. 33 Hacker Pipe & Supply Co. v. Chapman V. Mfg. Co., 17 Cal.App.2d 265, 271, 61 P.2d 944. 34 Also see cases collected 49 A.L.R.2d 735. 35 Champion v. Bennetts, 37 Cal.2d 815, 820, 236 P.2d 155, 158. 36 See Tully v. Travelers Ins. Co., D.C., 118 F.Supp. 568, in which a similar letter was written.

  6. Century Lloyds v. Barnett

    259 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Civ. App. 1953)   Cited 7 times

    If, however, there was no failure on the part of Culberson to co-operate in any of the particulars named in the policy, and there was no substantial or material interference on his part in any legal proceedings, the company was not released from its obligation to defend the suit, and would be in the same position as if it had taken charge of the defense.' Our Supreme Court has never departed from this rule, and we think it is applicable and controlling here. See cases collated in 22, Tex.Dig.Ins., k 514 1/2; see also 72 A.L.R. 1453, 1455; 139 A.L.R. 777, 780; Hoff v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 74 F.2d 689; Murphy v. Hopkins, 1942, 68 S.D. 494, 4 N.W.2d 801; American Fire Cas. Co. v. Vliet, 148 Fla. 568, 4 So.2d 862, 139 A.L.R. 767; Coleman v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 247 N.Y. 271, 160 N.E. 367, 72 A.L.R. 1443; George v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., 219 Ala. 307, 122 So. 175, 72 A.L.R. 1438. This record shows that Century Lloyds had immediate notice of Green's accident; that he gave his story as to how the accident happened to meers Claim Service, and after they made their investigation, under authority of Century Lloyds, they tried to settle the case but failed.