Court Opinion

ID: 9854684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:11:51.236706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:14.917934
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
dissenting: The insurance company’s liability, if any, is to pay the loss within the coverage of its policy. It is immaterial to it whether it pays the amount thereof to plaintiff or to defendant or both. Whether defendant is or is not indebted to plaintiff will not *109enlarge or reduce its liability. Hence, it is in no sense a party to the cause of action alleged in the complaint.
If plaintiff has failed or neglected to perform any duty owed by it to defendant in relation to the insurance policy and resulting in loss to defendant, defendant can so allege by way of counterclaim to plaintiff’s action. Present allegations do not state facts sufficient to constitute such counterclaim. The purport thereof is that plaintiff may not recover herein without first proceeding against the insurance company. In my opinion, the law does not require that plaintiff’s action on the note and chattel mortgage be so postponed.
Whether defendant’s allegations are sufficient to constitute a counterclaim to plaintiff’s action, the insurance company would not be affected thereby. Its liability, if any, is solely under the terms of its policy.
In my view, if plaintiff had joined in this action (1) the action against defendant to recover the debt, and (2) an action against the insurance company, for its own benefit or for the joint benefit of plaintiff and defendant, there would have been a misjoinder of parties and causes of action. It is equally so if defendant is permitted to join the insurance company and sue it in this cause for the loss recoverable under the terms of the policy. At least, it seems so to me.
Hence, I vote to affirm.