Maryland Cas. Co. v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.

Decision Date10 September 1956
Docket NumberNo. 15944.,15944.
Citation235 F.2d 679
PartiesMARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

John R. Gilliland, Memphis, Tenn., William H. Maynard, Clarksdale, Miss., for appellant.

Don G. Owens, Memphis, Tenn., Semmes Luckett, Clarksdale, Miss., for appellee.

Before RIVES, CAMERON and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge.

This is another of the increasing flood of cases in which liability insurers seek to escape judgment by claiming that another should bear the load. This frequently puts the assured, who through unusual prudence obtains two or more coverages, between the upper and the nether millstone and, in the place of the feeling of assurance (single or double) he finds himself facing not only the damage claimant with prospects of high judgment and cost, but a two, three or four-cornered free-for-all with as many underwriters whose only point of unanimity is: this policy doesn't apply because another (always a different company) does. This casts the insurers in strange and unique roles — echoing, for example, the refrain so often heard against them, that the policy, if ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, must be most liberally construed in favor of the assured. And, then, almost invariably, through the plea of subrogation, omnibus extensions or other accessible legal fictions, they then take upon themselves the garb of the assured, the injured party, or at least someone with an inviting equitable appeal.

We have that here: Kyle and his family Corporation, Kyle Manufacturing Company, obtained two separate policies, at least one — Maryland Casualty — on the strong representations by its agent that the other (Farm Bureau) policy did not afford coverage. An accident occurred. Kyle, his employee, Shull, and the Corporation were all sued, and after trial under full reservation of rights, a judgment had. Maryland, who alone insured the Corporation whose work alone was being done, contends that it owes nought because, to its fortune, Kyle was insured personally by Farm Bureau.

Kyle is a successful Mississippi planter with extensive agricultural operations. Thinking that, with growing mechanization on his plantations, it was good business to diversify, he organized a corporation, Kyle Manufacturing Company, in 1952, the stock of which was owned by his family but which was operated as a distinct enterprise in the manufacture of furniture. It was no mere hobby, and in the year prior to the accident, the Corporation, with a labor force of over twenty-five employees, had a volume of business approaching $200,000.00. Of course, such a business required transportation which Kyle, as the chief executive officer of the Corporation, determined would come from two sources: one, commercial over-the-highway carriers and, two, when the first were not available or suitable, any one or more of the large fleet of some thirteen motor trucks owned and used by him as a planter. This included, as most frequently used, the 1952 Chevrolet pickup truck involved in this accident.

Maryland was aware of these two distinct enterprises. At the time it began soliciting the Corporation's Workmen's Compensation business, its agent strongly advised Kyle to procure from Maryland a Comprehensive General-Automobile Liability Policy since, concerning the Corporation's regular use of the plantation's trucks, he warned, "well, you are not covered on trips that the factory might be involved in." Whether he got this or something else, Kyle's purpose was plain for, "* * * it was agreed that he Maryland's agent would write a policy covering trips involving Kyle Manufacturing Company." The policy was issued and it insures the Corporation's legal liability for damages occasioned by the use or operation of automobiles whether owned, hired, or borrowed.

In the meantime, Kyle, individually, continued his longtime practice, known to Maryland, of insuring his farm fleet with Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company. Except for the two Buick sedans declared to be used as "B & P" (business and pleasure), all of the vehicles were listed as "Comm." (commercial).

On November 24, 1953, the Corporation needed to obtain some supplies at Tullahoma, Tennessee. Kyle, as he normally did, made the pickup available along with Shull, one of his farm employees. The arrangement was for the Corporation to pay for all-out-of pocket expenses of operation. On this corporate trip the accident occurred with serious injuries to third parties. This was, by all tests business and legal, the Corporation's business and the Corporation's liability. Kyle in his individual capacity had nothing to do with this. To be sure, the truck was his, Shull was in his normal general employ. But used here on corporate business, at corporate expense, under corporate control, operation of the truck was not his personal responsibility.

He was, however, dragged into this by Maryland who, to escape an otherwise clear obligation under its policy to defend and indemnify, urged that by other express terms of its policy, it was not to be liable for non-owned1 vehicles if other valid and collectible insurance2 was available. In the exploratory probing for "other insurance", carried on with relative safety3 from knowledge that it was quite unlikely that any "other" insurer could turn the tables on it, Maryland's Geiger counter shortly reacted when it turned up Kyle's Farm Bureau Policy. What made the Farm Bureau Policy such a strike was the traditional Omnibus Clause4 extending, in effect, the insurance to persons using the automobile with the permission of the named insured or an organization legally responsible for such use.

On it, Maryland then argued that since the truck was being used by the Corporation with permission of the named insured (Kyle personally) the Corporation is automatically included as an additional insured and, if there is any reason why it is not so directly, it actually has the same status since Shull was, without a doubt, using the truck with Kyle's consent and the Corporation, his temporary employer, would be a "person or organization legally responsible for the use thereof." Finally, it says, the Corporation as its assured undertook further to subrogate5 Maryland to all of the Corporation's rights which, it then says, would include an action by the Corporation against its borrowed servant Shull at which time, it is claimed, Shull could call on Farm Bureau as an additional assured under Kyle's policy.

At this point, of course, Farm Bureau reacts with traditional defensive reflex and insists that Omnibus is something less, not because of its terms but because, contrary to the policy requirements,6 the accident or occurrence was not sustained while the truck was being used for the purpose stated in the declarations. Obviously, as the next step, Farm Bureau points to the unquestioned fact7 that the truck was declared to be for "Commercial use" and under the circumstances of this case, operation of this and Kyle's other trucks by the Corporation was not an "* * * occasional use for * * * other business purposes * * *" as the policy terms8 alone permit.

On this phase, which presented a fact issue, the Court heard evidence and arrived at a finding which is certainly not clearly erroneous, Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., under the tests we follow, e.g., Galena Oaks Corp. v. Scofield, 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 217; Griffin v. Kelley, 5 Cir., 227 F.2d 258; Des Isles v. Evans, 5 Cir., 225 F.2d 235; Western Cottonoil Company v. Hodges, 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 158; Williams v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 230 F.2d 293; Sanders v. Leech, 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 486; United States v. Gallops, 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 48; Atwood v. Kleberg, 5 Cir., 163 F.2d 108. Whether it was an "occasional use" was for the Judge to decide on the total evidence and not on isolated bits of testimony which these skilled advocates with commendable resourcefulness and all propriety, Leon Bernstein Co. v. Wilhelmsen, 5 Cir., 232 F.2d 771, 1956 AMC 754, cast in the rubric of the policy.

The Judge was impressed, as are we, with the uncontradicted fact that transportation was known to be an indispensable need of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • AMERICAN FIDEL. & CAS. CO. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 16441.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 9, 1957
    ...by another insurer with another assured and which, under no circumstance, was made for its benefit, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 235 F.2d 679; United Services Automobile Association v. Russom, 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 296; General Insurance Co. of Am......
  • Guillot v. Cenac Towing Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 27, 1966
    ...whether the insurance is in the form or trappings of underwriters at Lloyd's Coffee House, Maryland Cas. Co. v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 679, 683, or some domestic or foreign latter day adaptations of it, is quite unessential to the concept underlying Jane ......
  • United Services Automobile Association v. Russom
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 26, 1957
    ...of its clientele, to put its trust altogether in this Maginot Line, it, as do so many others, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 235 F.2d 679; Continental Casualty Co. v. Suttenfield, 5 Cir., 236 F.2d 433, falls back on fluid defenses the effect of......
  • AMERICAN F. & C. CO. v. Pennsylvania T. & FM Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 6, 1960
    ...1 American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 509; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 679; United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Russom, 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 296; General Insurance Co. of Ame......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 14
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...or staving off execution on such a judgment while the issue of coverage is fought out. See Maryland Cas. Co. v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Co., 235 F.2d 679 (5th Cir. 1956). We join in the district court’s commendation of the procedure followed in the instant case, which enabled the prompt settlem......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT