Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Lamb v. Horwick

48 Ill. App. 2d 251 (Ill. App. Ct. 1964)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Lamb v. Horwick

5 Citing cases

  1. Keel v. MFA Insurance Co.

    1976 OK 86 (Okla. 1976)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that where insurance carrier had adequate notice of suit between insured and uninsured motorist, it will be bound to the resulting judgment

    If valid, these same difficulties occur if the insurer was required to intervene in order to protect its rights. State ex rel. Manchester Insurance Indemnity Co. v. Mass., 522 S.W.2d 722 (Mo. 1975); Rawlins v. Stanley, 207 Kan. 564, 486 P.2d 840 (1971); Indiana Insurance Co. v. Noble, 265 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. App. 1970); State v. Craig, 364 S.W.2d 343, 95 A.L.R.2d 1321 (Mo. App. 1963); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga. App. 193, 154 S.E.2d 286 (1967); Continental Ins. Co. v. Smith, 115 Ga. App. 667, 155 S.E.2d 713 (1967); Jiles v. Smith, 118 Ga. App. 569, 164 S.E.2d 730 (1968); Lamb v. Horwick, 48 Ill. App.2d 251, 198 N.E.2d 194 (1964); Kroeker v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 466 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. App. 1971); Wert v. Burke, 47 Ill. App.2d 453, 197 N.E.2d 717 (1964); Dominici v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 143 Mont. 406, 390 P.2d 806 (1964); Lamb v. Horwick, 48 Ill. App.2d 251, 198 N.E.2d 194 (1964); Matthews v. All State Ins. Co., 194 F. Supp. 459 (E.D.Va. 1961); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Glover, 113 Ga. App. 815, 149 S.E.2d 852 (1966); Heisner v. Jones, 184 Neb. 602, 169 N.W.2d 606 (1969). We have re-examined our holding in the Holt case and now decide that it is permissible for an insured to join his insurer as a party defendant in an action against an uninsured motorist.

  2. Oliver v. Perry

    304 So. 2d 583 (Ala. 1975)   Cited 5 times
    Upholding informing jury of uninsured motorist carrier's status

    An insurer with uninsured motorist coverage has an interest in litigation between its insured and the uninsured motorist sufficient to permit its intervention therein. Title 7, Section 247, Code of Alabama, 1940; Gulf American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Gowan, 283 Ala. 480, 218 So.2d 668; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Stuart, 280 Ala. 657, 270 So.2d 792; Franklin v. Dorsey-Jackson Chevrolet Co., 246 Ala. 245, 20 So.2d 220; Lamb v. Horwick, 48 Ill. App.2d 251, 198 N.E.2d 194; Kroeker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Mo. App., 466 S.W.2d 105; Rawlins v. Stanley, 207 Kan. 564, 486 P.2d 840; Giles v. Smith, 118 Ga. App. 569, 164 S.E.2d 730; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Glover, 113 Ga. App. 815, 149 S.E.2d 852; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Brown, 114 Ga. App. 650, 152 S.E.2d 641. Intervenor has the right to participate directly in the trial of the case. Franklin v. Dorsey-Jackson Chevrolet Co., 246 Ala. 245, 20 So.2d 220; Dodd v. Deep Water Coal Iron Co., 233 Ala. 392, 171 So. 732; 39 American Jurisprudence § 80 p. 852.

  3. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hunt

    469 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1971)   Cited 28 times
    In Hunt, the Texas Supreme Court held that the insurer, having consented to the insured's proceeding with suit and having agreed to be bound by the outcome of that case, could not withdraw its consent and proceed on behalf of the uninsured motorist.

    The gravity of the supposed conflict of interest arising out of the cooperation clause has not been appreciated in a host of cases which have permitted or required the insurer to make common cause with the uninsured motorist. Among the cases are: State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Glover, supra; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga. App. 193, 154 S.E.2d 286 (1967); Lamb v. Horwick, 48 Ill. App.2d 251, 198 N.E.2d 194 (1964); Wert v. Burke, 47 Ill. App.2d 453, 197 N.E.2d 717 (1964); Dominici v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 143 Mont. 406, 390 P.2d 806 (1964); Missouri ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Craig, 364 S.W.2d 343, 95 A.L.R.2d 1321 (Mo.App. 1963); Heisner v. Jones, 184 Neb. 602, 169 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pietrosh, 85 Nev. 310, 454 P.2d 106 (1969); Matthews v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 F. Supp. 459 (E.D.Va. 1961). Contra: MFA Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bradshaw, 245 Ark. 95, 431 S.W.2d 252 (1968); Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 192 So.2d 679 (La.App. 1966); Holt v. Bell, 392 P.2d 361 (Okla. 1964).

  4. Ind. Ins. Co. v. Noble

    148 Ind. App. 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 69 times
    In Noble, where the "filing and pendency" phrase first appeared, the trial court had made a finding of fact that the insurance company was notified "that a suit for damages had been filed against said uninsured driver," 148 Ind. App. at 304, 265 N.E.2d at 424, but made no finding regarding notice to the insurer of service of process on the uninsured motorist, and the appellate court decided the case without attributing any significance to the absence of a finding regarding service of process.

    The insurance company had a right to intervene in the case brought by the insured against the uninsured motorist. Wert v. Burke, 47 Ill. App.2d 453, 197 N.E.2d 717 (1964); State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Craig, supra; Dominici v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 143 Mont. 406, 390 P.2d 806 (1964); Alston v. Amalgamated Mut. Cas. Co., 53 Misc.2d 390, 278 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1967); Lamb v. Horwich, 48 Ill. App.2d 251, 198 N.E.2d 194 (1964); Matthews v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 F. Supp. 459 (E.D. Va. 1961); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga. App. 193, 154 S.E.2d 286 (1967); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Glover, 113 Ga. App. 815, 149 S.E.2d 852 (1966); Heisner v. Jones, 184 Neb. 602, 169 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Boughton v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra. See also cases collected in 95 A.L.R.2d 1330.

  5. Allstate Ins. v. Hunt

    450 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that potential for conflict of interest precludes insurer from participating in defense of uninsured motorist

    In State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga. App. 193, 154 S.E.2d 286, the court held that the insurer has a direct and immediate interest to protect since it stands to gain or lose by direct effect of the judgment. See also Dominici v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 143 Mont. 406, 390 P.2d 806; Matthews v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 F. Supp. 459 (1961), (D.C.Va.); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Glover, 113 Ga. App. 815, 149 S.E.2d 852 (1966); Lamb v. Horwick, 48 Ill. App.2d 251, 198 N.E.2d 194; Wert v. Burke, 47 Ill. App.2d 453, 197 N.E.2d 717; Alston v. Amalgamated Mut. Cas. Co., 53 Misc.2d 390, 278 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1967). On the other hand, a number of cases from other jurisdictions have denied the insurance company the right to participate in the defense of an uninsured motorist in a suit brought by its insured.