This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Brune (P) was a passenger in an automobile driven by McDonald (D). D drove his car off the highway and into a tree. P was injured. P sued: P alleged that D was negligent in the operation of his car, ignored P's warnings, and had been drinking. P later deleted the drinking allegation from the complaint. Pacific Indemnity Company filed a complaint in intervention; they insured D for $5,000. Pacific Indemnity alleged that both P and D had been drinking the afternoon of the accident, that P knew that D had a habit of drinking, that P and D decided that P should sue D to collect the insurance money, that P and D changed their account of what happened several times before deciding on the present rendition of the events, that D would not deny P's allegations, and that they would wait until the statute of limitations has almost run to make it difficult to obtain witnesses to establish the true facts surrounding the accident. Pacific Indemnity sought an injunction to restrain the prosecution of P's cause of action until it could be determined whether D had breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy insurance. P demurred to Pacific's intervention; they didn't have sufficient rights at stake to allow intervention. The circuit court sustained P's demurrer. Pacific appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.