The case of Clinchfield R.R. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.' involved the question of whether the insured, in a suit against his insurer, is bound by findings adverse to him in prior litigation between the insured and a third person.The liability insurance policy involved covered certain vehicles of the railroad company but expressly excluded from coverage injuries to employees in the course of their employment. One Harrison, a regular railroad employee, was injured while riding in an insured vehicle with a fellow employee. He sued the railroad company under the Federal Employers Liability Act. Before he could recover under this statute, of course, he had to establish that he was injured in the course of his employment. The railroad company notified the insurer of the suit, but the insurer declined to defend it on the ground that the employee's injury was not covered by the policy. The railroad company thereupon defended the action, insisting that the employee was not in the course of his employment when injured, but that he was on the way home after completing the day's work. The jury found this controverted issue against the employer and awarded damages to the plaintiff Harrison.
Robert W. Sturdivant,
Insurance -- 1958 Tennessee Survey,
11 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol11/iss4/21