Opinion ID: 1493721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Plaintiffs in the Suits Against White Stand in His Shoes Quoad the Policy

Text: The two civil actions against White filed in the state court have been brought by the heirs of the pedestrians killed by White's car. The appellant's liability for the amount of any judgments that might be rendered in those suits depends, of course upon what rights White himself has under the policy. It has been suggested that it would be a hardship on the plaintiffs in the state suits to deprive them, because of White's lack of co-operation, of the benefits that they might otherwise have derived under the appellant's policy. The hardship, however, is more apparent than real. White's policy with the appellant, had it been enforceable, would have been a sheer windfall for the plaintiffs in the state actions. They are not out of pocket as a result of the policy. They have paid no premiums. The tort for which they are suing, if any tort has been committed, is one of which White and not the appellant is the perpetrator. As was well said in Royal Indemnity Co. v. Watson, supra, 5 Cir., 61 F.2d at page 616, likewise an automobile liability insurance case: The contract of insurance was issued for the protection of assured against loss; it was not designed for the protection of strangers. An injured person needs no protection against an assured who is solvent. Quite apart from considerations of sympathy or good morals, however, it is well settled in the law that in an action of this character the injured person stands in no better position than the assured and that a violation by the latter of a cooperation clause which would serve to preclude the assured from indemnity under his policy will likewise bar the injured person from recovering against the insurer should the judgment in his favor and against the assured remain unsatisfied. The Valladao case, supra, 13 Cal.2d at page 328, 89 P.2d at page 646. [8]