Court Opinion

ID: 9643581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:33:32.680775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:01.675871
License: Public Domain

SPARKS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result of the main opinion, but I cannot concur in its statement that “we accept the insurance company’s contention that the over-cooperation which consists of the giving of perjured testimony was lack of cooperation.” I vote for affirmance because the evidence fails to show a breach of the contract.
Condition 10 of the policy provides “ * * * no action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the assured shall have fully complied with all the conditions hereof, nor until the amount of the assured’s obligation to pay shall have been determined either by final judgment against the assured after actual trial or by written agreement of assured, the claimant, and the company ’* * .Any person or his legal representative who has secured such judgment * * shall thereafter be entitled to recover under the terms of this policy in the same manner and to the same extent as the assured.”
Giving effect to each clause of these provisions would seem to indicate that it was the intention of the parties that any lack of cooperation, if any, on the part of the insured, or his agent, should be disclosed before final judgment, providing the judgment creditor had not been guilty of fraud in its procurement. No one claims that the plaintiff in this case was guilty of any fraud. The policy, in effect, provided that the company might appeal the case in the name of the assured, or his agent, and there is no evidence that Roin failed to do anything in the way of co-' operation that the company asked of him. There was no appeal from the judgment against Roin. After the expiration of the time for appeal, the judgment became final and comes to us in this case with the presumption that there was no error in rendering it. The company participated in the defense of the first case, and I think it is too late now to defeat a recovery in the case for the lack of cooperation of Roin, if any, in the first case.
Furthermore, I think there was no lack of cooperation on the part of Roin or the insured.