Legal Opinion

Lucas v. Durabond Products Co.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 2, 1981No. Civ. A. 79-164PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER

WEBER, Chief Judge.

In this case the defendant has moved to require the dismissal of this case because it is not brought by the real party in interest as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a). A real party in interest in this case is the plaintiff’s employer (or its insurance carrier) who seeks by this action to recover a large sum of money from the defendant as their subrogation right.

An abundant body of case law holds that a party holding a subrogation interest, either whole or partial, is the real party in interest. United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366, 70…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Smith v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Lipari v. Niagara Machine & Tool WorksDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Neal to Use v. B.R. P. Rwy. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Insurance From CNA v. Keene Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  2. Insurance From CNA v. Keene Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Wolfe, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API