Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

• Citation: 252 F.2d 158
• Decision Date: 18 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 15769.,15769.
• Parties: Valta Sue JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

252 F.2d 158 (1958)

Valta Sue JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 15769.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

February 18, 1958.

Frank W. Hayes, Sedalia, Mo. (Hayes & Durley, Sedalia, Mo., was with him on the brief) for appellant.

Fred F. Wesner, Sedalia, Mo. (Wesner & Wesner, Sedalia, Mo., was with him on the brief) for appellee.

Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and JOHNSEN and VOGEL, Circuit Judges.

GARDNER, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint in an action wherein plaintiff, appellant herein, sought to recover judgment against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on account of personal injuries received by her because of the alleged negligence of one William W. Powers while she was being transported in an automobile owned by her father, Floyd Potter, and driven by said Powers with her father's consent. The automobile was a 1948 Dodge sedan and the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, appellee herein, had issued a liability insurance policy to Floyd Potter covering the automobile, which policy was in full force and effect at the time of the accident. This insurance policy contained provision that the appellee would pay on behalf of the "insured" all sums which the insured became legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injuries caused by accident arising out of the use of the automobile. The policy also provided that the unqualified word "insured" used therein "includes the named insured and also includes any person while using the automobile * * *, provided the actual use of the automobile is by the named insured or with his permission." Under Section (e) of Exclusions it was provided that coverage did not apply "* * * to the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured".

Following her accident appellant brought action against William W. Powers, the driver of the automobile, in the state court to recover damages for the injuries she had suffered because of the alleged negligence of said Powers. In that action she recovered judgment in the sum of $17,000 and that judgment had become final and was wholly unsatisfied at and prior to the time of the institution of the present action. The appellee denied liability under its policy and therefore refused to defend Powers in the state court action. Subsequent to the entry of the state court judgment and prior to the institution of the present action appellee, on demand, refused to pay appellant the sum of $10,000, its limit under said policy.

Appellant then brought this action against Powers and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the appellee herein, seeking to reach and apply the sum of $10,000 toward the satisfaction of her said judgment. In her complaint she alleged that the defendant Powers was an additional insured under the provisions of the liability insurance policy covering the automobile in which she was being transported at the time of receiving her injuries.

William W. Powers defaulted and appellee in its answer denied liability alleging no coverage existed under its policy of liability insurance issued to Floyd Potter for personal injuries sustained by appellant and further alleged that appellant was a "member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured".

The action was tried to the court without a jury and the court found all the issues of law and fact in favor of the appellee and specifically found that appellant at and prior to the time of the accident was a member of the named insured's family but that it did not appear from the evidence who was the common head or manager of the household but that "* * * it is clearly established, and the Court so finds, that all the members thereof made common use of the establishment in question and lived therein, caring for each other reciprocally, from natural, moral obligations".

The paramount issue of fact on this appeal is whether appellant at the time of receiving her injuries was a member of the family of Floyd Potter, the assured, residing in the same household as the assured within the provisions of the policy. The court answered this inquiry in the affirmative and its findings are presumptively correct and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. In considering the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the court the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. Sherman Inv. Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 199 F.2d 504; Linscomb v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 8 Cir., 199 F.2d 431.

It appears from the evidence that at and for a long time prior to March 19, 1955, the date of the accident, Floyd Potter, the named insured, resided in a nine room house on a farm owned by his brother, Higdon Potter, who, with his wife, also made their home in the same house at said times. Higdon Potter was not locally employed but was a superintendent for a paving construction company and he and his wife were absent from their home about six months a year. Appellant, daughter of the named insured, prior to her marriage in April, 1953, lived in the same house on the farm as a member of Floyd Potter's family. At the time of her marriage her husband was a member of the Armed Forces. After her marriage appellant continued to live in the above household with the named insured and the Higdon Potters until September, 1953, when she went to Colorado to be with her husband. About the first of April, 1954, she returned to the farm after her husband was transferred overseas. From that date she continued to live at this home until sometime after the date of the accident. During the last-mentioned period of time appellant considered the farm as "my home" because she had no other place to stay while her husband was overseas. Appellant and her aunt, Mrs. Higdon Potter, did the housework and cooking and all the members of the household ate their meals at a common table. Appellant did not pay any board but did contribute some of the groceries, "whenever we needed groceries, or I felt like there was something I wanted". The sole purpose of her trip to Colorado was to be with her husband and when his army service was ended there she returned to the house of her father, Floyd Potter, whence she had left to go to Colorado in the first place, and again took up her position as a member of the household occupying her old bedroom as before and having and enjoying the same family relationships in the home and household as she had since childhood. Higdon Potter, the owner of the house where all the Potters lived, called as a witness on behalf of appellant, testified that when they had company they all sat down with the company at the common table together and that there was no rule against any one or the other restricting or not allowing any one of them to go into one part or the other part of the house as among himself, his wife, Floyd Potter or appellant. He was then interrogated and made answer as follows:

"Q. In other words, each one of you had bedrooms which were understood to be yours and Mrs. Potter\'s and some other bedroom in the house was understood to be Valta Sue\'s and some other bedroom understood to be Mr. Floyd Potter\'s?

"A. That is right. And the rest of the house downstairs, the living room, kitchen and dining room, that would be a joint affair, anybody would have the same privileges.

"Q. When you said `joint\' you mean `common\'?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Including Floyd, Valta Sue, yourself and wife?

"A. Yes."

Mrs. Higdon Potter, also called as a witness on behalf of appellant, testified that there was only one kitchen, one cook stove and one dining room, and that they all ate their meals together — "It was a family affair"; that the laundry was done for all the members of the household and that all members of the household looked at the television set which was in the living room downstairs whenever they wished.

It is contended by appellant that the finding of the court that there was no common head or manager of the household precluded a finding that appellant was a member of the family of Floyd Potter residing in the same household as Floyd Potter. The short answer to this contention is that the court did not so find. The court only found that it did not appear who was the common head or manager of the household. This is far from a finding that there was no common head or manager of the household. The court in this connection did find that:

"That terms `family\' and `household\' as used in Section III(e) thereof, must be construed in their primary sense and as commonly understood. When so construed, they qualify each other as synonyms, and make reference to a collective body of persons, consisting of parents, or children, or other relatives, domestics, or servants, residing together in one house, upon the same premises as one domestic establishment. Cf. Peterson v. National Council of K. & L. of Security, 189 Mo.App. 662, 175 S.W. 284; Wentz v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 259 Mo. 450, 168 S.W. 1166, 1172."

The word "family" is a very flexible term. It has frequently been defined as such persons as habitually reside under one roof and form one domestic circle. Here appellant lived under the same roof as the insured and the Higdon Potters and their relations were of a permanent domestic character. Appellant had resided in this household as her home since her early childhood and she had never had any other home. The meaning to be given to the term "family" depends to a greater or less extent on the intention of those using the term. The term "family" or "household" cannot be so limited and strait-jacketed as always to mean, regardless of facts and circumstances, a collective body of persons who live in one house under one common head or manager. Here the manifest purpose...