Union Paving Co. to Use of United States Casualty Co. v. Thomas
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
186 F.2d 172 (1951)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Union Paving Company (plaintiff) was the general contractor for a road project. Thomas (codefendant) was Union Paving’s subcontractor. The subcontracting agreement contained a no-fault blanket provision obligating Thomas to indemnify Union Paving for any losses arising from Thomas’s work, regardless of whether any negligence on Thomas’s part occasioned the loss. Thomas was insured by United States Casualty Company (the insurer) (codefendant). The insurance policy expressly did not apply to liability Thomas assumed under any contract or agreement not listed in the policy. Although the policy contained a detailed endorsement covering Thomas’s work for Union Paving at a sewage disposal plant, no such endorsement covered the road project. During the course of Thomas’s subcontracting work on this project, a motorist drove into one of Thomas’s excavations. The motorist successfully sued Union Paving for improperly supervising Thomas’s work, and recovered damages. Union Paving sued Thomas to indemnify it for the damages. Thomas brought the insurer into the case. When the federal district court dismissed the insurer as a defendant, Thomas appealed to the Third Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McLaughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.