Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mattison, 6 Div. 794

• Decision Date: 07 January 1971
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 794
• Citation: 286 Ala. 541,243 So.2d 490
• Parties: ALABAMA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, v. Winford MATTISON, Jr., a minor, et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 490

243 So.2d 490

286 Ala. 541

ALABAMA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, v. Winford MATTISON, Jr., a minor, et al.

6 Div. 794.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 7, 1971.

Baker, McDaniel, Hall & Parsons, Birmingham, for appellant.

Francis H. Hare, Sr., Birmingham, for appellees Carolyn Morris, a minor, and Buck Morris.

HARWOOD, Justice.

The Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, a Corporation, issued to Charles Thomas as the named insured, a policy of automobile casualty insurance. The policy afforded coverage on a 1964 Ford, two Buicks, and some eight or ten trucks.

Mr. Thomas operated a poultry farm. The trucks were used in the farm operations. One of the Buicks was used principally by Mr. Thomas, the other Buick by Mrs. Thomas, and the Ford by David Thomas, their son, it having been bought for David's use.

Winford Mattison, referred to in the testimony as 'Junior' Mattison was a boyhood friend of David Thomas. They were both 16 years of age at the time of the automobile collision which is the basis of this proceeding. This collision occurred on a Saturday night.

Mattison worked at the Thomas' poultry farm about two afternoons per week, and usually on Saturdays. He performed various chores on the farm, and from time to time would be instructed by Mr. Thomas to go on various errands such as to a hardware store, or to a sawmill to pick up wood chips, etc.

In carrying out such errands Mattison would usually use one of the trucks, or if more convenient, he would use one of the Buicks or the Ford.

On the Saturday of the collision, David and Winford Mattison had worked at the poultry farm until about 4:00 P.M. They each then went their separate ways. That night they met in a poolroom by chance. After a short while they began driving around in the Ford, Winford Mattison driving the automobile with David's permission. They went to a football game where they remained for a short while, and to an ice cream stand, and were on their way to a skating rink when the Ford collided with another automobile. Their peregrinations on this night appear to have been jointly agreed upon.

Two people in the second automobile were injured in the collision. Suits were filed by parties claiming damages as a result of the accident, two of such suits naming Mattison as defendant, and two naming both Mattison and David Thomas as co-defendants.

The insurer filed a declaratory action seeking a judicial determination as to whether it was obligated to afford Mattison or David Thomas a defense of the suits or payment of any judgments that might be rendered.

In the declaratory proceedings it was the insurer's contention that it was under no duty or liability to either Mattison or David Thomas for the reason that at the time of the accident Mattison was driving the Ford without the express permission of Charles Thomas, the named insured, or of his spouse.

The pertinent provisions of the policy relative to insurer's contention of no obligation under the policy reads as follows:

'DEFINITIONS--INSURING AGREEMENTS I AND II

'Named Insured--means the individual so designated in the declarations and also includes the spouse, if a resident of the same household.

'Insured--under Coverages A, B, C and C--1, the unqualified word 'insured' includes (1) the named insured, and also includes (2) his relatives, (3) any other person while using the automobile, provided the actual use of the automobile is with the express permission of the named insured, and (4) under Coverages A and B any person or organization legally responsible for the use thereof by an insured as defined under the three subsections above.

'Relative--means a relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household.'

In the hearing below Charles Thomas, the insured, testified that the Ford had been bought with the intention that it was to be used by his son David. He instructed David to be careful in operating the Ford, but nothing was ever said as to David permitting some one else to drive the Ford.

He knew that Mattison had used the Ford a few times during his work on the farm in going on errands, as well as the other vehicles.

He had observed Mattison driving the Ford in the daytime on weekends, accompanied by David, but had had no occasion to observe Mattison driving the Ford at night, but nothing was said by him to David relative to Mattison driving the Ford when not at work.

On the night of the accident David left the house and he did not recall David telling him where he was going, and on that night he did not expressly give Mattison permission to drive the Ford--nothing was said one way or the other.

Mattison testified that when he drove the Ford at night or on weekends he had never had occasion to ask Mr. Thomas' permission to drive the car, and never had occasion to talk to Mr. Thomas on the night of the accident relative to driving the automobile.

David Thomas likewise testified that his father had never said anything relative to his permitting other people to drive the Ford. The only instructions he had ever given him were to be careful. When Mattison was driving...