Home Indemnity Co. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
474 F.2d 1081 (1973)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Parker G.M.C. Truck Sales, Inc. (Parker) (defendant) sold a new truck to Bodge Lines, Inc. (Bodge). As part of the deal, Bodge agreed to trade in a used truck. A lender held the certificate of title for Bodge’s used truck, but the parties agreed Parker would pay the balance due to the lender to get the title. Parker delivered the new truck to Bodge, and Parker then sent an employee to pick up the used truck from Bodge. The used truck wasn’t available until later that day, but Parker’s representative could not come back that day. One of Bodge’s mechanics volunteered to drive it over to Parker, and Parker’s employee agreed. On his way over, the mechanic crashed the used truck and injured two people. Parker had the truck towed to Parker’s lot. Parker paid off the used truck, repaired it, and resold it. Later, the two people injured in the truck accident sued for personal injury. In a separate lawsuit, Home Indemnity Co. (Home Indemnity) (plaintiff), Bodge’s insurance company, sued Twin City Fire Insurance Co. (Twin City) (defendant), Parker’s insurance company. Home Indemnity wanted the court to declare that Parker was the owner of the truck at the time of the accident, and, therefore, that Parker was liable for any personal injuries caused by the accident. The trial court determined that Parker owned the truck when the mechanic crashed it. Twin City and Parker appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hastings, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.