## Facts

- An automobile owned by Edward Dutcher was driven by Donald Cionci; passengers included John Lynch and John Harris.
- The car crossed a median and collided with a truck driven by Thomas Smith, killing Cionci, Lynch, and Smith and severely injuring Harris.
- Dutcher had an automobile liability policy with Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. with a $100,000 per-accident limit covering Dutcher and anyone driving with Dutcher’s permission.
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co., as administrator of Lynch’s estate, obtained a $50,000 settlement/judgment against Cionci’s estate, which was effectively unable to pay.
- Separate state tort suits by Smith’s administratrix and Harris against Cionci’s estate, Dutcher, and Lynch’s estate were filed and remained pending.
- Provident filed a federal diversity declaratory judgment action against Lumbermens and Cionci’s estate seeking a ruling that Cionci had Dutcher’s permission and therefore was an insured under the policy; Harris and Smith’s administratrix joined as co-plaintiffs.
- Dutcher (a nondiverse Pennsylvania resident) was not joined because doing so would have destroyed complete diversity.
- After trial, the district court entered judgment for the estates and Harris on the permission/coverage issue.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit raised joinder on its own, held Dutcher indispensable, and dismissed the action.

## Issues

1. Whether Dutcher, the owner and named insured, was an indispensable party whose absence required dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b).
2. Whether pre-Federal Rules decisions created a “substantive” right of potentially affected nonparties to be joined, limiting Rule 19’s operation.
3. Whether the court of appeals properly exercised discretion by ordering dismissal for nonjoinder after a full trial and verdict.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court rejected the view that older cases created a substantive nonparty right to compulsory joinder that constrained Rule 19.
- The Court held Dutcher was not indispensable under Rule 19(b) in this coverage/permission dispute.
- The Court concluded the court of appeals erred by dismissing after a prolonged trial and verdict, particularly where defendants had not timely pressed nonjoinder or relied on the pending state actions.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 19(b) requires a pragmatic determination whether an action should proceed, “in equity and good conscience,” when a person cannot be joined, weighing prejudice, the ability to shape relief, adequacy of judgment, and adequacy of an alternative remedy.
- “Indispensable party” analysis under Rule 19(b) is not a rigid jurisdictional threshold; it depends on balancing the Rule’s specified considerations in the case’s procedural setting.
- Pre-Federal Rules joinder decisions did not create a substantive right of outsiders to be joined; Rule 19 supplies the governing procedural framework.
- A named insured’s interest in an insurer coverage dispute may make joinder desirable, but does not automatically make the insured indispensable, especially where the judgment will not bind the absentee and the absentee remains free to litigate related issues elsewhere.
- In reviewing Rule 19(b) after trial, courts should account for the completed litigation and the parties’ conduct in raising (or not raising) nonjoinder earlier.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the absence of the vehicle owner and named insured did not require dismissal of a federal diversity declaratory judgment action deciding permissive-use coverage, and it required application of Rule 19(b)’s equitable, interest-based factors—especially given that the case had already been fully tried to verdict.


Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968)