Allstate Ins. Co. v. Meeks
| Decision Date | 06 March 1967 |
| Citation | 207 Va. 897,153 S.E.2d 222 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. James Thomas MEEKS. |
R. V. Richardson, Hampton (James, Richardson & James, Hampton, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Harry J. Kostel; L. Wallace Sink, Newport News (Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, Newport News, on brief), for defendant in error.
Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO and GORDON, JJ.
This case involves the narrow issue whether the benefits under an uninsured motorist provision in a liability policy issued to a named insured on one motor vehicle owned by him extend to the named insured while he is operating another motor vehicle owned by him and not covered in such liability policy. The lower court held that in such circumstances the benefits do extend to the named insured. For the reasons to be stated, we affirm.
The appeal is before us on a stipulation of facts which may be summarized thus: On March 20, 1963 Allstate Insurance Company issued to James Thomas Meeks a policy insuring him against liability for bodily injuries and property damage in the operation of a 1957 Ford sedan owned by him. The policy carried the usual uninsured motorist provisions required by Code, § 38.1--381(b), as amended.
On June 1, 1963, while Meeks was operating a 1954 Chevrolet sedan owned by him and on which no liability insurance policy had been issued, he was injured in a collision between the car driven by him and another driven by Percy Singleton. The car then operated by Singleton was uninsured.
In an action against Singleton, of which Allstate had notice, Meeks recovered a judgment for $3,287, with interest and costs, for damages for injuries sustained in the collision. Meeks then filed a motion for judgment against Allstate to recover this amount, claiming that he was entitled to do so under the uninsured motorist provision in the policy which had been issued to him covering the 1957 Ford sedan. Allstate denied liability to Meeks for such claim, on the ground that its coverage under the uninsured motorist provision in the liability policy issued to him on the 1957 Ford sedan did not extend to him while he was operating the other automobile. The lower court disagreed with this contention, held that coverage under the uninsured motorist provision extended to Meeks, and entered a judgment in his favor against Allstate for the amount claimed. We granted Allstate a writ of error.
Both sides agree that no question of the exclusion of the risk under the provisions of the policy is involved and that the determination of the matter turns on a proper interpretation of the applicable statute.
Code, § 38.1--381(b) (Repl.Vol.1953), as amended, 1 provides: 'Nor shall any such (liability) policy or contract (relating to ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle) be so issued or delivered unless it contains an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle,' within prescribed limits.
Section 38.1--381(c), as amended, 2 defines the term 'insured' as, 'the Named insured and, while resident of the same household, the spouse of any such named insured, and relatives of either, While in a motor vehicle or otherwise, and any person who uses, with the consent, expressed or implied, of the named insured, the motor vehicle to which the policy applies and a guest in such motor vehicle to which the policy applies or the personal representative of any of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 73--20
...was injured by an uninsured motorist. The policy provision and the exclusion were similar to the ones in the case at bar, but as in Allstate v. Meeks, supra, the statute was not. The California court held the exclusion to be ineffective but in doing so, pointed out that the California statu......
-
Bradley v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.
...157, 194 S.E.2d 890 (1973); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Hurst, 2 Cal.App.3d 1067, 83 Cal.Rptr. 156 (1969); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Meeks, 207 Va. 897, 153 S.E.2d 222 (1967).Holding "other insurance" clause invalid: Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Jones, 286 Ala. 606, 243 So.2d 736 (1970); Kac......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hampton
...was later repealed); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hurst, 2 Cal.App.3d 1067, 83 Cal.Rptr. 156 (1969) (superseded by statute); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Meeks, 207 Va. 897, 153 S.E.2d 222 (1967); see also Stephens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 508 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir.1975) (applying Texas law); cf. Smith......
-
Mitchell v. Broudnax
...v. Emcasco Ins. Co., 555 P.2d 1037 (Okla. 1976); Hogan v. Home Ins. Co., 260 S.C. 157, 194 S.E.2d 890 (1973); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Meeks, 207 Va. 897, 153 S.E.2d 222 (1967) (court looked to the definitions of "insured" and concluded coverage extended to owned but not insured vehicle). See a......