Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Mutual Ins., No. 12-1761 (4th Cir. 2013)Annotate this Case
This action arose out of allegedly defective roofing work performed by defendant. At issue was whether defendant, an insured contractor, was a nominal party in a contribution suit between its insurers. The court affirmed the district court's holding that defendant was a nominal party for purposes of the nominal party exception to the rule of unanimity governing removal where defendant did not possess a sufficient stake in the proceeding at issue to rise above the status of a nominal party.