Ciconett v. Home Ins. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Reliance Insurance Company v. the Escapade

    280 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1960)   Cited 55 times
    Rejecting this type of argument based on the history, function and purpose of the sue and labor clause

    In addition to the specific references above, the following also bear generally on the clause. 1 Arnould, Marine Insurance §§ 22-23 (13th ed. 1950); 2 Arnould, supra, §§ 864-872, 799a; 6 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice §§ 3794-3795 (1942); Templeman Greenacre, Marine Insurance at 112-118 (4th ed. 1934); Winter, Marine Insurance at 195, 196, 393 (3rd ed. 1952); American Merchant Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty Sand Gravel Co., 3 Cir., 1922, 282 F. 514; White Star S.S. Co. v. North British Merc. Ins. Co., D.C.E.D.Mich. 1943, 48 F. Supp. 808, 1943 AMC 399; Ciconett v. Home Ins. Co., W.D.Ky. 1948, 80 F. Supp. 429, affirmed, 6 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 892; Republic of China v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., D.C.Md. 1957, 151 F. Supp. 211, 1957 AMC 912. Taking the analysis through the next step, it is obvious that since the clause is to reimburse the assured for expenses incurred in satisfying the assured's duty to the underwriter, there is no such duty where the policy, for one reason or another — either basic lack of coverage or an unwaived defense, forfeiture, etc. — does not apply. The underwriter has no right to demand that the assured take the sue and labor steps unless the policy is applicable. An assertion of any such demand is therefore consistent only with continued existence of the coverage.

  2. Home Ins. Co. v. Ciconett

    179 F.2d 892 (6th Cir. 1950)   Cited 29 times
    Observing that a Sue and Labour Clause may operate as a separate contract requiring payment beyond the limits stated elsewhere in the insurance policy

    The Insurance Company also contends that no liability at all exists under the policy because the "Judge Ross" was not seaworthy, in that the bulkheads were not watertight which prevented the floating of the vessel off the stump. However, the District Judge found that "The `Judge Ross' was not unseaworthy on the occasion of either sinking [ 80 F. Supp. 429, 431]," which finding does not appear to us to be clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. City of Cleveland v. McIver, 6 Cir., 109 F.2d 69.

  3. People v. Globe Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.

    96 Cal.App.2d 571 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 3 times

    Neither side has cited a case where the facts are similar. In Ciconett v. Home Ins. Co., 80 F. Supp. 429, it was held that the expenses of an unsuccessful attempt to raise a sunken towboat were recoverable under the sue and labor clause in a marine insurance policy. Defendant reasons that by analogy, the raising of the spud point in our case must necessarily come under that clause.