From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Keane

Superior Court, New Haven County At New Haven
Jan 30, 1967
26 Conn. Supp. 463 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1967)

Opinion

File No. 109846

Section 52-102a, providing for the impleading of a third party by the defendant in a civil action, permitted the present defendant to implead an insurer who disclaimed liability under a policy of insurance.

Memorandum filed January 30, 1967

Memorandum on motion to implead. Motion granted.

Robert J. Gillooly, of New Haven, for the plaintiff.

Garvey, Colleran Weiner and Pouzzner Hadden, of New Haven, for the defendant.


The question presented is whether an insurer who has disclaimed liability under a policy of insurance can be impleaded under General Statutes § 52-102a.

Our statute was apparently modeled after Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The statute provides in part: "A defendant in any civil action may move the court for permission as a third-party plaintiff to serve a writ, summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him." The purpose of the rule is to facilitate litigation, to save costs, to bring all of the litigants into one proceeding, and to dispose of an entire matter without the expense and labor of many suits and many trials.

Under federal decisions, the application of the rule to the insurer seems to be well settled. Jordan v. Stephens, 7 F.R.D. 140; Rosalis v. Universal Distributors, Inc., 21 F.R.D. 169; Knapp v. Hankins, 106 F. Sup. 43. There is no logical reason why this court should not adopt the same procedure.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Keane

Superior Court, New Haven County At New Haven
Jan 30, 1967
26 Conn. Supp. 463 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1967)
Case details for

Murphy v. Keane

Case Details

Full title:JOHN W. MURPHY v. EDWARD T. KEANE, SR

Court:Superior Court, New Haven County At New Haven

Date published: Jan 30, 1967

Citations

26 Conn. Supp. 463 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1967)
227 A.2d 94

Citing Cases

Szemanski v. Vulcan Materials Co.

See: Price v. Yellow Cab.Co., 443 Pa. 56, 278 A.2d 161 (1971); Nicholson v. Garris, 418 Pa. 146, 210 A.2d 164…

State v. Cheney

I. Mandamus is the proper remedy if the judge of the district court has power to correct the statement on…