Indiana Ins. Co. v. Knoll, 767A33
Decision Date | 22 April 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 767A33,No. 1,767A33,1 |
Parties | INDIANA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Virginia KNOLL, Rufus Lark, III, Jesse Jamison, James Olds, Ellease Howell, David H. McCain, Administrator of the Estate of William C. Howell, Deceased, and Eugene H. Haviland, Administrator of the Estate of Gerald Lee Knoll, Deceased, Appellees |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Frederick H. Link, Douglas D. Seely, Jr., South Bend, Jones, Obenchain, Johnson Benjamin Piser, Piser & Cox, South Bend, for appellees.
Ford & Pankow, South Bend, of counsel, for appellant.
This is an appeal from the Starke Circuit Court, wherein the Appellant brought an action seeking a judicial determination, by way of a declaratory judgment, to determine whether a certain policy of insurance was void or voidable because of alleged false answers and representations made by the insured when he executed the underwriting questionaire as a part of his application for insurance.
After the proper issues were closed, the cause was submitted to the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts upon which the Court entered the following finding and judgment:
'Upon the agreed statement of facts, the Court finds against the plaintiff and for defendants Knoll, Howell, Estate of Gerald Knoll.
'The Court finds that the policy of Insurance #FAS--06--045--074 of the Indiana Insurance Company to Gerald Knoll and Virginia Knoll was and is a valid, binding and enforceable contract of insurance for the period of 5--28--64 to 5--28--65.
'IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff take nothing by way of its complaint.
'IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT the policy of insurance #FAS--06--045--794 issued by the Indiana Insurance Company to Gerald Knoll and Virginia Knoll was and is a valid, binding and enforceable contract of insurance for the period of 5--28--64 to 5--28--65.
'Costs v. plaintiff.'
Thereafter Appellant filed its motion for a new trial which the trial court overruled and that ruling is the assigned error on appeal.
Because of the result we have reached, we believe the only pertinent specification of error in the motion for new trial is number four which alleges:
'That the decision of the court is contrary to law.'
The agreed statement of facts appearing in the record is as follows:
'1. On the 28th day of May, 1964, Gerald Knoll, also known as Gerald L. Knoll, and Virginia Knoll made application for private passenger automobile insurance to the plaintiff, Indiana Insurance Company. The face side of the application was filled out and signed by the Bardonner Insurance Agency, Michigan City, Indiana. The reverse side of the application which is entitled 'Underwriting Questionnaire' containing information furnished by Gerald Knoll was signed by Gerald Knoll. A copy of form of application as it was filled out and signed is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit 'A'.
'2. The Bardonner Insurance Agency issued an insurance policy after Bardonner Insurance Agency signed the face side of the application and Gerald Knoll signed the reverse side of the application designated 'Underwriting Questionnaire', as referred to in statement No. 1 above. The policy was issued on May 28, 1964. A copy of the policy as issued is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit 'B'.
'3. After the issuance of such policy, Gerald Knoll, while operating a motor vehicle purportedly covered by such policy, was involved in an automobile accident.
'4. Various parties, including all of the defendants in this action, have made a claim against the Indiana Insurance Company under the policy above referred to.
'5. The pertinent parts of the Driver Record of Gerald Knoll as shown in the Michigan City Police Department, Michigan City, Indiana, are:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. Michigan Mut. Liability Co.
...Celina Mutual Casualty Co. v. Baldridge (1937), 213 Ind. 198, 204, 10 N.E.2d 904, 12 N.E.2d 258; Indiana Ins. Co. v. Knoll et al. (1968), 142 Ind.App. 506, 515, 236 N.E.2d 63, 14 Ind.Dec. 103. In the instant case, the four findings of fact, when viewed as a whole, show only that a policy of......
-
Paint Shuttle, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co.
...to withhold or secrete information so that the one entitled to be informed will remain in ignorance. Indiana Ins. Co. v. Knoll, 142 Ind.App. 506, 236 N.E.2d 63, 70 (1968). After reviewing the record, we found no evidence of concealment attributed to Bosch. Because Banasiak had knowledge of ......
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kivela
...undertaken by the insurer, but in such a case, the contract is voidable at the election of the insurer. Indiana Insurance Company v. Knoll, (1968) 142 Ind.App. 506, 236 N.E.2d 63; Prentiss v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, (7th Cir. 1940) 109 F.2d 1, cert. denied 310 U.S. 636......
-
Randall v. Norberg
...354 A.2d 499, 505 (1976). The court's role is limited to applying the law to the undisputed facts. See Indiana Insurance Co. v. Knoll, 142 Ind.App. 506, 515, 236 N.E.2d 63, 70 (1968); American Iron & Machine Works Co. v. Insurance Company of North America, 375 P.2d 873, 875 (Okl.1962). Whil......