From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Salem Baptist Church of Jenkintown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 30, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-cv-7072 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2012)

Summary

finding that, pursuant to American Auto Insurance. Co. v. Murray, 658 F.3d 311, 317 (3d Cir. 2011), an underlying injured party is necessary in action by insurance company against insured

Summary of this case from Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Burke Landscaping, Inc.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-cv-7072

04-30-2012

BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. SALEM BAPTIST CHURCH OF JENKINTOWN, Defendant.


ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2012, upon consideration of the Motion to Intervene filed on behalf of Walter Logan and the Delta Alliance, LLC (ECF No. 3) and memoranda in response thereto (ECF Nos. 12, 24, 25), the Petition to Intervene filed on behalf of the Estate of Lester Mack (ECF No. 22) and Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 26), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Walter Logan and Delta Alliance, LLC's Motion (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

2. The Estate of Lester Mack's Petition (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

3. Walter Logan, Delta Alliance, LLC and the Estate of Lester Mack are JOINED as required defendants in the present action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2).

BY THE COURT:

_______________

J. CURTIS JOYNER, C.J.


Summaries of

Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Salem Baptist Church of Jenkintown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 30, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-cv-7072 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2012)

finding that, pursuant to American Auto Insurance. Co. v. Murray, 658 F.3d 311, 317 (3d Cir. 2011), an underlying injured party is necessary in action by insurance company against insured

Summary of this case from Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Burke Landscaping, Inc.

In Salem Baptist, the court concluded that Murray superseded the holding in Treesdale that financial interests in insurance disputes are insufficient under Rule 19 and, therefore, Treesdale should no longer be considered good law regarding Rule 19. Salem Baptist, 2012 WL 1526851, at *4.

Summary of this case from State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dougherty

stating that Rauscher held "that an injured party has standing to defend a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer."

Summary of this case from Carrasquillo v. Kelly
Case details for

Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Salem Baptist Church of Jenkintown

Case Details

Full title:BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. SALEM BAPTIST CHURCH OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 30, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-cv-7072 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2012)

Citing Cases

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dougherty

Thus, Treesdale compels this Court to reject the Eisenharts' argument for joinder under Rule 19. In support…

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JESS AMCHIN, et al

But Treesdale indisputably stands for the proposition that an injured party is not entitled to intervene as a…