Court Opinion

ID: 9885575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:07:40.059592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.126918
License: Public Domain

*424Fuld, J.
(dissenting). While I agree with the court that the State Insurance Fund was under the necessity of defending the actions that had been brought in the federal court and, accordingly, defendant is liable for payment of the legal fees incurred by plaintiff in connection with their defense, I see no basis for holding defendant responsible for the amount that plaintiff paid to the United States pursuant to the agreement of settlement. The question for decision is whether the claims, settled by plaintiff’s payment of $87,000 to the Government were included within the coverage of the Fund’s policy of insurance and not, as Judge Desmond puts it (opinion, p. 411), whether plaintiff was ‘1 reasonably justified ’ ’ in paying that amount in settlement. The policy covered only those obligations “ imposed by law ”, and, since the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that there is no right to contribution between joint tort-feasors in noncollision cases (see Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship. Corp., 342 U. S. 282), plaintiff was under no such obligation. In my view, therefore, it follows that plaintiff may not look to the policy for reimbursement or recovery of the amounts paid in settlement.
I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conwat and Froessel, JJ., concur with Desmond, J.; Dye and Fuld, JJ., dissent in separate opinions.
Judgment accordingly. [See 304 N. Y. 732, 875.]