Young v. White
| Decision Date | 11 March 1977 |
| Citation | 551 S.W.2d 12 |
| Parties | Charles F. YOUNG, and Pigg Insurance Agency, Inc., Appellants, v. Conway WHITE, Individually, and d/b/a Conway's Tire Service, and Westchester Fire Insurance Company, Appellees. Conway WHITE, Individually, and d/b/a Conway's Tire Service, Appellant, v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Boyd F. Taylor, Hamm, Taylor, Milby & Farmer, London, for appellants, Charles F. Young and Pigg Insurance Agency, Inc. C. R. Luker, Jr., London, for appellee, Conway White d/b/a Conway's Tire Service.
W. R. Patterson, Jr., Landrum, Patterson & Dickey, Lexington, for appellee, Westchester Fire Insurance Co.
Before WINTERSHEIMER, MARTIN and WILHOIT, JJ.
The original action was initiated by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the Defendants/Appellees, Charles F. Young, Pigg Insurance Agency, Inc., and Westchester Fire Insurance Company, on November 24, 1971, seeking to recover the sum of $20,000.00 arising out of a fire loss sustained by the Plaintiff. All parties moved for summary judgments and the trial court sustained a motion of the Defendant Westchester, dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint against Westchester and also sustained a motion of the Plaintiff for a summary judgment against the Defendants, Young and Pigg. The summary judgments were made final on January 28, 1974. It is from the judgment dismissing the complaint against Westchester that White appeals and it is from the judgment against Young and Pigg that they appeal. Notices of appeal were filed February 18, 1974. The two appeals were consolidated for joint review. The Supreme Court transferred this to the Court of Appeals on October 8, 1976. This Court affirms the summary judgment in favor of Westchester Fire Insurance Company and reverses the summary judgment against Young and Pigg.
Conway White, the Plaintiff/Appellant, suffered a fire loss at his tire recapping building on February 2, 1971. Charles Young is the president of Pigg Insurance Agency, Inc., and an active agent for that corporation. Pigg Insurance Agency had a contractual relationship with Westchester Fire Insurance Company which authorized Young to bind Westchester for certain types of insurance coverage as set out in their Agency-Company Agreement. Young also had similar agreements with nine other companies. Young had known White for about sixteen years and had sold him insurance on several occasions. White had experienced four separate fire losses in twenty-two years in the tire recapping business. One of White's previous fire losses had been covered by a policy written by Young. On July 20, 1970, Young wrote two $10,000.00 policies on the building, one with Westchester and one with The Federal Insurance Company. On September 22, 1970, Young endorsed each policy for an additional $10,000.00 contents coverage. On October 26, 1970, Young received a letter from Westchester indicating that it did not desire contents coverage, but was willing to retain the original $10,000.00 coverage on the building if Young would eliminate the contents coverage from the policy. The required endorsement reducing the coverage was never obtained by Young from White. On December 2, 1970, Westchester cancelled the entire policy, both building and contents, in the amount of $20,000.00. Notice was sent and received by the mortgagee of White's building and Young also received notice. White testified that he never received the mailed notice, but that the mortgagee notified him of the cancellation. White telephoned Young who assured him that he would take care of it. Later in a conversation on the street, Young advised White that he had renewed the policy. There is a conflict between the depositions of White and Young as to this conversation.
After the conversation, Young did nothing about reissuing the policy. Westchester refunded White's premium later in December. The fire loss occurred about two months thereafter on February 2, 1971.
The questions presented are as follows:
1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in awarding a summary judgment to Westchester?
2. Whether the trial court erred in awarding a summary judgment against Young and Pigg?
In considering the liability of Westchester, it is necessary to determine whether the verbal exchange between White and agent Young created an oral contract sufficient to bind Westchester on the coverage of White's building. Kentucky has long held that an oral contract of insurance must include...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fryman v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp.
...proof the defendants renewed their motion for a directed verdict. In arguing their motion, defendants cited the case of Young v. White, 551 S.W.2d 12 (Ky.Ct.App.1977), as setting forth five requirements for proving an oral contract for insurance and argued that plaintiffs had failed to prov......
-
Wireman v. City of Greenup
...hold that it was error to grant summary judgment to the City of Greenup. Boyd v. Badenhausen, Ky., 556 S.W.2d 896 (1977); Young v. White, Ky.App., 551 S.W.2d 12 (1977); CR The judgment of the circuit court is reversed for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All concur. * The d......
-
Res-Care Development Co., Inc. v. Oakes Agency, Inc., RES-CARE
...854 F.2d 144, 146 (6th Cir.1988). II. Under Kentucky law, insurance contracts may be either oral or written. See, e.g., Young v. White, 551 S.W.2d 12, 14 (Ky.App.1977); Aetna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Licking Valley Milling Co., 19 F.2d 177, 180 (6th Cir.1927). "[I]n order for an oral ......
-
Petty v. Barrentine
...that it was proper for the trial court to sever the vested rights issue from the zoning issue. CR 21, CR 54.02, and Young v. White, Ky.App., 551 S.W.2d 12 (1977). If the trial court correctly concluded that the appellees acquired a vested right, then it also correctly decided that, if the z......