Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Beckwith Machinery Company v. Travelers Indemnity Company

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
638 F. Supp. 1179 (1997)


Facts

Beckwith Machinery Company (Beckwith) (plaintiff) sold Caterpillar Tractor Company (Caterpillar) tractors to Trumbull Corporation (Trumbull). These tractors broke down, therefore stalling the progress of a Trumbull construction project. Trumbull notified Beckwith that the Caterpillar tractors were defective and that they had caused Trumbull to incur damages. Beckwith had a comprehensive general-liability policy with Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) (defendant). Under this policy, Travelers was to defend Beckwith in any property-damage lawsuits. Prior to Trumbull’s filing of its claim against Beckwith, Beckwith notified Travelers that Trumbull might file a claim. On April 15, 1977, Trumbull sued Beckwith and Caterpillar for the damages it incurred due to the defective Caterpillar tractors. Trumbull sought actual and punitive damages. Travelers assumed the defense of this case. On June 8, 1977, Travelers notified Beckwith that it would not defend the punitive-damages claims. Beckwith retained Thorp, Reed and Armstrong to defend the punitive-damages claims. On April 10, 1978, a Travelers employee noted that Beckwith, as a joint tortfeaser, could be liable for 50 percent of Trumbull’s claim. The employee also noted that Travelers might be estopped from withdrawing its defense of Beckwith. On May 19, 1978, 13 months after Trumbull sued Beckwith, Travelers denied coverage to Beckwith and withdrew its defense. Shortly thereafter, Travelers offered to resume its defense of the Trumbull case without providing coverage if Beckwith would waive claims of prejudice against Travelers. Beckwith hired Thorp, Reed, and Armstrong to defend it in the Trumbull action. The lawsuit between Trumbull and Beckwith settled for $100,000. Beckwith sued Travelers, alleging breach of contract. Beckwith and Travelers each moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Cohill, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.