Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    James T. Michel v. The Ætna Casualty and Surety Company, and The Automobile Insurance Company, 252 F.2d 40, 10th Cir. (1958)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case ruling on whether an automobile insurance policy provided coverage for an accident. The court summarized that: 1) The plaintiff traded in two vehicles and acquired a new vehicle in a single transaction, retaining ownership of a third vehicle insured under a separate policy. 2) The policy covering the traded-in vehicle automatically covered the newly acquired vehicle, but coverage did not take effect until delivery of the new vehicle. 3) At the time of delivery, the other policy did not insure all vehicles owned by the plaintiff, so its automatic coverage provision for new vehicles did not apply. The court therefore ruled that only one policy provided coverage.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    James T. Michel v. The Ætna Casualty and Surety Company, and The Automobile Insurance Company, 252 F.2d 40, 10th Cir. (1958)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views3 pages
    This document is a court case ruling on whether an automobile insurance policy provided coverage for an accident. The court summarized that: 1) The plaintiff traded in two vehicles and acquired a new vehicle in a single transaction, retaining ownership of a third vehicle insured under a separate policy. 2) The policy covering the traded-in vehicle automatically covered the newly acquired vehicle, but coverage did not take effect until delivery of the new vehicle. 3) At the time of delivery, the other policy did not insure all vehicles owned by the plaintiff, so its automatic coverage provision for new vehicles did not apply. The court therefore ruled that only one policy provided coverage.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1958-03-07 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 252 F.2d 40 Docket: 5708

    Original Title

    James T. Michel v. The ætna Casualty and Surety Company, and the Automobile Insurance Company, 252 F.2d 40, 10th Cir. (1958)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court case ruling on whether an automobile insurance policy provided coverage for an accident. The court summarized that: 1) The plaintiff traded in two vehicles and acquired a new vehicle in a single transaction, retaining ownership of a third vehicle insured under a separate policy. 2) The policy covering the traded-in vehicle automatically covered the newly acquired vehicle, but coverage did not take effect until delivery of the new vehicle. 3) At the time of delivery, the other policy did not insure all vehicles owned by the plaintiff, so its automatic coverage provision for new vehicles did not apply. The court therefore ruled that only one policy provided coverage.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    22 views3 pages

    James T. Michel v. The Ætna Casualty and Surety Company, and The Automobile Insurance Company, 252 F.2d 40, 10th Cir. (1958)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case ruling on whether an automobile insurance policy provided coverage for an accident. The court summarized that: 1) The plaintiff traded in two vehicles and acquired a new vehicle in a single transaction, retaining ownership of a third vehicle insured under a separate policy. 2) The policy covering the traded-in vehicle automatically covered the newly acquired vehicle, but coverage did not take effect until delivery of the new vehicle. 3) At the time of delivery, the other policy did not insure all vehicles owned by the plaintiff, so its automatic coverage provision for new vehicles did not apply. The court therefore ruled that only one policy provided coverage.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    252 F.

    2d 40

    James T. MICHEL, Appellant,


    v.
    The TNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, and The
    Automobile Insurance Company, Appellees.
    No. 5708.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    January 29, 1958.
    Rehearing Denied March 7, 1958.

    Floyd L. Walker, Tulsa, Okl. (Kenneth L. Stainer, Tulsa, Okl., was with
    him on the brief), for appellant.
    William S. Hall, Tulsa, Okl. (W. E. Green, Raymond G. Feldman, and
    George A. Farrar, Tulsa, Okl., were with him on the brief), for appellees.
    Before MURRAH, LEWIS, and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
    BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

    Appellant Michel, plaintiff below and hereinafter so referred to, brought this
    declaratory judgment action claiming that at the time of an accident his 1955
    Pontiac station wagon was insured under the automatic coverage provision of a
    policy issued to him by the appellees, hereinafter jointly referred to as Aetna.
    The case was submitted on a stipulation of facts. The trial court held that there
    was no coverage.

    Prior to October 3, 1956, plaintiff owned three automobiles. One was a 1955
    Chrysler Imperial insured by Aetna under a policy having liability limits of
    $50,000-$100,000. The second was a Pontiac Catalina insured by Great
    American Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as Great American, under
    a policy having liability limits of $5,000-$10,000. The third was a 1952 Dodge
    pick-up truck which was not insured.

    On October 3, 1956, the plaintiff traded the Dodge and the Pontiac Catalina to

    the Carl Lea Motor Company of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, for a Pontiac
    station wagon. This was a "mutual, simultaneous transaction" by which the
    motor company acquired the Dodge and the Pontiac Catalina and the plaintiff
    acquired the Pontiac station wagon. On the same day, but after the
    consummation of the trade, the Pontiac station wagon was delivered to the
    plaintiff. At the time of such delivery the only other automobile owned by the
    plaintiff was the Chrysler. On October 4, 1956, the Pontiac station wagon,
    while being driven by plaintiff's wife, was involved in an accident.
    4

    The policy issued by Aetna on the Chrysler and the policy issued by Great
    American on the Catalina contained identical provisions relating to the
    automatic coverage of newly acquired automobiles. Each stated that as used in
    the policy, the term "automobile" means:

    "(4) Newly Acquired Automobile an automobile, ownership of which is


    acquired by the named Insured or his spouse if a resident of the same
    household, if (a) it replaces an automobile owned by either and covered by this
    policy, or the Company insures all automobiles owned by the named Insured
    and such spouse on the date of its delivery, and (b) the named Insured or such
    spouse notifies the Company within thirty days following such delivery date; *
    * *." No question relating to the notice to the company is raised here. Great
    American has conceded that the station wagon became automatically covered
    by its policy. This is obviously correct because the station wagon replaced the
    Catalina which was originally covered by the Great American policy.

    The quoted provision is for the benefit of the insured and has for its purpose
    automatic coverage in respect to the operation or maintenance of an automobile
    acquired as a replacement for the automobile originally covered1 or acquired as
    an additional automobile when the company insures all the automobiles of the
    individual.2

    The automatic coverage provision becomes effective at the time of the delivery
    of the newly acquired automobile.3 This is true as to both the Great American
    and Aetna policies. The word "date" as used in the phrase "the date of its
    delivery" refers to the particular point of time at which the transaction occurred
    rather than the calendar day on which it occurred.4

    On October 3, 1956, the plaintiff had two insurance policies, one in Aetna
    covering the Chrysler and one in Great American covering the Catalina. On
    that day he divested himself of ownership of the Catalina and simultaneously
    acquired ownership of the station wagon. He retained ownership of the

    Chrysler. The Great American policy on the Catalina, under the replacement
    portion of its newly acquired automobile provision, was, at the time of the
    simultaneous transaction of exchange, extended to cover the station wagon but
    did not become effective for that purpose until delivery of the station wagon.
    This deferment of the effectiveness of the policy did not nullify the existence of
    the insurance. It merely postponed the time when it became operative. The
    conclusion necessarily follows that at the "date" or time of delivery of the
    newly acquired automobile, Aetna did not insure all automobiles owned by the
    plaintiff. Hence, Aetna is not liable under the newly acquired automobile
    provision of its policy.
    9

    We express no opinion as to what the situation might have been if there had
    been a lapse of time between the divestiture of ownership of the originally
    insured automobile and the acquisition of the replacement.

    10

    The judgment is affirmed.

    Notes:
    1

    Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Lund, 10 Cir., 234 F.2d 916, 919

    Horace Mann Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bell, D.C., 134 F.Supp. 307, 310-312;
    Birch v. Harbor Ins. Co., 126 Cal.App. 2d 714, 272 P.2d 784, 786; Dunmire
    Motor Co. v. Oregon Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 166 Or. 690, 114 P.2d 1005, 1008

    Maryland Casualty Co. v. Toney, 178 Va. 196, 16 S.E.2d 340, 343; Blixt v.
    Home Mut. Ins. Co., 145 Neb. 717, 18 N.W.2d 78, 80. Cf. Western Casualty &
    Surety Co. v. Lund, supra [234 F.2d 919], wherein this court said that "the
    automatic coverage becomes effective immediately upon the replacement."

    Kleinschmidt v. Hoctor, 361 Mo. 29, 233 S.W.2d 649, 654; Waggener v.
    McCanless, 183 Tenn. 258, 191 S.W.2d 551, 553, 162 A.L.R. 1402; In re
    Muldoon, Sup., 123 N.Y.S.2d 711, 712; In re Irvine's Estate, 114 Mont. 577,
    139 P.2d 489, 490-491, 147 A.L.R. 882. The Oklahoma statute, O.S.1951, Title
    25, Section 23, providing that fractions of a day are to be disregarded in
    computations which include more than one day, is obviously not applicable

    You might also like