Lamberton v. Travelers Indemnity Company
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- New Castle County v. Hartford Accident And Indemnity Company (3d Cir. 1991)
- New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (3d Cir. 1991)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kenner (Del. 1990)
- Chicago Insurance v. Pacific Indemnity Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1980)
- Zurich American Insurance Company v. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC (Del. 2024)
- Mfrs. Ins. Gp. v. Holger Trucking (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011)
- Clarendon America Insurance v. North American Capacity Insurance (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)
- Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indemnity Co. (Court of Chancery of Delaware 2009)
- Reynolds v. S & D FOODS, INC. (District Court, D. Kansas 1993)
- Clemtex, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company (5th Cir. 1987)
- Corso v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1987)
- Washington Occupational Health Associates, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance (District Court, District of Columbia 1987)
- Hannah v. Erie Insurance Exchange (Del. 1987)
- Atlas Underwriters, Ltd. v. Meredith-Burda, Inc. (Va. 1986)
- Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Co. v. Pied Piper Kiddie Rides, Inc. (Superior Court of Delaware 1982)
- Hallowell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Del. 1982)
- Burlington Cty. Abstract Co. v. QMA Associates, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
- Pioneer National Title Insurance Co. v. Child, Inc. (Del. 1979)
- Child, Inc. v. Rodgers (Superior Court of Delaware 1977)
- Brookins v. State (Del. 1976)
- Beaumont-Gribin-Von Dyl Management Co. v. California Union Insurance (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment which determined as a matter of law that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover from their liability carrier certain payments made by them on personal injury claims arising from an accident. The facts of the case are set forth at length in the opinion below at 325 A.2d 104.
Plaintiffs contended that the Deductible Clause of the insurance policy limited to the sum of $10,000 the total deduction for each accident resulting in liability, regardless of the number of injuries arising therefrom. Defendant took the position that its liability is limited to the amounts in excess of $10,000 on each injury for which plaintiffs become liable; that, therefore, the deductible amount in this case was $80,000. Payment was made to the claimants by plaintiffs, under protest, in accordance with defendant’s position. Plaintiffs appeal.
Negligence actions were filed by eight injured workmen, five of their wives and by the estate of the one deceased workman. The cases were settled prior to trial, judgments were entered, and payment was made as follows:
Judgment Paid by defendant Paid by plaintiff
(1) Joe Brown - $125,000. $115,000. $10,000;
(2) Evelyn Clark - 125,000. 115,000. 10,000.
(3) Robert Creelman, etux. - 60,000. . 50,000. 10,000.
(4) Ezekiel Osborne, etux. - 15,000. 5,000. 10,000.
(5) Carmen Cedrone, etux. - 15,000. 5,000. 10,000.
(6) Henry Carlson, etux. - 7,500. 7,500.
(7) Paul L. Congo - 7,500. 7,500.
(8) Mahlon Mears - 7,500. 7,500.
(9) Thomas L. Leister - 5,000. 5,000. '
Total $370,000. ' $290,000. $80,000.
We agree with the conclusion reached by the Superior Court that the words “each claim,” as used in the Deductible Clause, do not mean “each accident.” We hold that *169 each judgment entered herein was a “claim” within the meaning of the Deductible Clause. Accordingly the position taken by the defendant was correct.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.