Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York - 138 F.R.D. 53
tl;dr:
This case is an example of a party bringing in a 3rd party defendant via impleader, who may be liable for all or part of the claims against the defendant.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1991 case Gross v. Hanover Insurance Co., a man named Robert Gross sued Hanover Insurance Company for stolen jewelry. Hanover then requested to involve Anthony and Joseph Rizzo, the owner and employee of the store where the theft occurred, as third-party defendants according to Rule 14 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hanover claimed that Joseph's negligence allowed the theft and that Anthony's negligence involved hiring Joseph, who had a cocaine problem. Gross disagreed with the addition of the Rizzos, but the court permitted their involvement. The court believed involving the Rizzos would help avoid multiple lawsuits and promote judicial economy.
The court balanced the benefits and drawbacks of including the Rizzos, finding it would not hinder the trial, confuse the jury, or harm Gross's rights. They also dismissed Gross's claim that Hanover's attempts were too unsure or too late.
This case matters because it shows how impleader, a procedural device, operates in federal courts. Impleader allows a defendant to involve a third party who may be responsible for the plaintiff's claim. It aims to achieve judicial economy, convenience, and fairness. Impleader serves various rules and is not necessarily automatic or unlimited but relies on factors like relevance, timeliness, and prejudice. The case demonstrates how courts may apply impleader to different claims involving multiple parties, such as theft or property loss insurance claims.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The Hanover Insurance Company has been granted permission to add Joseph Rizzo and Anthony Rizzo as third-party defendants in a case involving an insurance claim for the loss of jewelry worth $217,800 and $48,000. The jewelry was lost due to a theft that occurred at 3-R Jewelers, owned by Anthony Rizzo and where Joseph Rizzo was employed. The defendant alleges that Joseph was negligent in handling the jewels and that Anthony was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising Joseph. The police report includes statements from Anthony that Joseph had a cocaine habit and that he thought the habit was under control. Rule 14(a) allows a defendant to serve a summons and complaint on a third-party who may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff. The district court has discretion in deciding whether to permit a third-party complaint and must balance the benefits of impleader against the potential prejudice to the plaintiff and third-party defendants. The defendant's proposed third-party claims arise from the same core of facts as the plaintiff's claim, and thus, allowing those claims to proceed in the same action would serve judicial economy.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.