NEGLIGENCE - THE "SAME HAZARD" PRINCIPLE - NONLIABILITY IN EVENT OF INJURY FROM A HAZARD OF DIFFERENT TYPE FROM THAT WHICH JUSTIFIED IMPOSITION OF DUTY TO USE DUE CARE

Authors

Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

In a previous suit by plaintiff against a policy holder, defendant, who was the insurer and conducted the defense for the insured, rejected an offer made by plaintiff to settle the claim for less than the policy limit, which was $5,000. There was thereafter a verdict for plaintiff for $7,500, which was satisfied to the amount of $5,000. Plaintiff then brought an action against the defendant insurance company in the name of the policy holder to recover the remainder of the judgment on the ground that defendant was negligent in rejecting the plaintiff's settlement offer. Held, plaintiff stated no cause of action against the defendant because the hazard from which injury resulted was not the same hazard which justified the imposition on the defendant of the duty to use due care. Duncan v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., (N. H. 1941) 23 A. (2d) 325.

Recommended Citation

Michigan Law Review, NEGLIGENCE - THE "SAME HAZARD" PRINCIPLE - NONLIABILITY IN EVENT OF INJURY FROM A HAZARD OF DIFFERENT TYPE FROM THAT WHICH JUSTIFIED IMPOSITION OF DUTY TO USE DUE CARE, 40 Mich. L. Rev. 922 (1942).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol40/iss6/18