Court Opinion

ID: 9443383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:19:07.977513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:28.443070
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Since I have concurred in the judgment in Fisher v. Home Indemnity Company, No. 13810, 5 Cir., 198 F.2d 218, upon which the majority rest their opinion in the present case, and yet dissent herein, it may be well to indicate wherein this case differs from that one. It will be observed that in the present case the policy of insurance, by express endorsement, applied “only to operations performed in the State of Louisiana.” That State was the only place where the insurance contract was to be in force. The policy was written in the State of Texas, but the essential coverage was restricted to the State of Louisiana. The insurer is authorized to, and does, conduct business in Louisiana. In such contract, and its enforcement, the State has a direct and natural interest on behalf of its creature, which seeks recovery because of an alleged injury inflicted by the insured in Louisiana. This interest has been manifested by the Louisiana direct action statute. In writing the policy now involved and restricting its coverage only to operations performed in the State of Louisiana, the insurer must be held to have contracted with a view to subjection to the provisions of Louisiana law. Having done so, it is not in position to successfully maintain that the statutes and jurisprudence of that State unconstitutionally seek to impinge upon its contractual rights.
Under the opinion of the controlling majority, there should have been, and can be, in this suit, no trial at all. Therefore, the appellant’s alternative claims of error subsisting in the attempt are effectively mooted.
Rehearing denied; RUSSELL, J., dissenting.