Court Opinion

ID: 9449941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:28:31.835657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:03.727481
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree that the judgment below should be reversed with direction to dismiss the action.
Travelers, at this stage, is not a sub-rogee of its insured, Hoe Sai Gai. Until it furnishes a defense or pays out money in satisfaction of the claim of Ferguson, the injured party, it has no standing as a subrogee. Therefore, the question is pertinent: What right does Travelers have to insist that Hoe Sai Gai be declared an additional insured of Standard ? The answer is, none.
If Hoe Sai Gai were the plaintiff who was seeking a defense and additional insurance protection from Standard, it would have standing as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Standard and Lanzarotta. This is the feature distinguishing the instant case from George H. Wolff Sons, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 286 F.2d 862 (7th Cir.1961). In that case, both the named insured and the store owner, corresponding to Hoe Sai Gai, were plaintiffs in the declaratory action.