Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson

PETITIONER: Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company
RESPONDENT: Patterson
LOCATION: South Boston Court

DOCKET NO.: 28
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1967-1969)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

CITATION: 390 US 102 (1968)
ARGUED: Nov 06, 1967 / Nov 07, 1967
DECIDED: Jan 29, 1968

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 06, 1967 in Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 07, 1967 in Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson

Earl Warren:

Number 28, Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate John R.Lynch, etcetera, Petitioner versus George M.Patterson, Administrator of the Estate of Donald Cionci et al.

Norman Paul Harvey:

May it please the Court.

Earl Warren:

Mr. Harvey.

Norman Paul Harvey:

Sir, in summary of what was said yesterday and in our brief.

The suggested order of the minority of the Third Circuit would by the very order suggested contemplate additional litigation.

It contemplates litigation by the party who was not a -- the person who not a party in order to resolve his right.

It is quite possible that in asserting his rights, either in a federal court or in a state court a conclusion directly contrary to the conclusion reached in the instant case in the District Court could be reached.

Byron R. White:

And what if it were?

Norman Paul Harvey:

Then it would have one decision saying that there was no coverage for Cionci.

You would have another decision saying it was coverage for Cionci.

And these two decisions would be in conflict.

The order of the Court doesn't say what it would do in that situation where the proposed order of the minority --

Byron R. White:

Yes but what's the impact on Dutcher?

Norman Paul Harvey:

The impact on Dutcher is that he may be completely lost with no coverage due to the fact of the decision in one of these courts.

Byron R. White:

Can you spell that out?

Norman Paul Harvey:

Yes sir.

If Dutcher should prevail in a coverage case in Delaware County, under that, he would be in --

Byron R. White:

But how was -- what do you mean prevail?

Norman Paul Harvey:

That is if he should obtain a verdict in an action against the Lumbermens and Cionci.

Byron R. White:

That there was coverage or that there wasn't?

Norman Paul Harvey:

That there was no coverage for Cionci then, Dutcher would be entitled to the entire fund that he had provided by purchasing a policy.

However, at the same time, there would be a finding in the District Court, Federal District Court in Philadelphia that Cionci was entitled --

Byron R. White:

Yes, but that's --

Norman Paul Harvey:

-- to the coverage of the policy.

Byron R. White:

That's your client's problem, not Dutcher's.

All that mean is that -- all that mean is that the insurance company pays out money under this federal judgment that he will have an issue here where coverage was found.

And then if Dutcher would do -- isn't in this case, prevails against the insurance company in another suit, it may be the insurance company has -- will pay double payments but that's not -- that should -- that isn't Dutcher's problem.

That's yours.

Norman Paul Harvey:

I think also Your Honor --

Byron R. White:

Well, isn't that true?