Allstate Ins. Co. v. Napier

Decision Date01 February 1974
Citation505 S.W.2d 169
PartiesALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. John NAPIER et al., Appellees. John NAPIER, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Edward J. Utz, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant Allstate Ins. Co.

G. Wayne Bridges, Covington, for appellants-appellees John Napier, Jr., Juanita Napier, and John Napier, Jr., Father and Next Friend of Gary Napier and Ricky Napier.

Adams, Brooking & Stepner, Covington, for appellees Selective Ins. Co. and John Sweeney Pontiac, Inc.

L. T. GRANT, Special Commissioner.

These consolidated appeals arise from a declaratory judgment adjudicating the rights and liabilities of the parties under a garage liability insurance policy and the limits of uninsured-motorist coverage under a standard automobile liability insurance policy.

The appellant Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Allstate) appeals from the trial court's judgment holding that its insureds, John Napier and Juanita Napier, Gary Napier and Ricky Napier (hereinafter referred to as Napiers), were entitled to limits of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident for each of two automobiles listed on their policies of insurance for which a separate premium was paid, thereby increasing the limits for uninsured-motorist coverage to $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident.

The appellants Napiers appeal from the trial court's judgment holding that appellee Warren Pierson was not an additional or omnibus insured under a garage liability insurance policy issued by appellee Selective Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Selective) to appellee Jake Sweeney Pontiac, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Sweeney).

Selective provided garage liability insurance coverage for Sweeney of Cincinnati, Ohio, under a contract of insurance entered into in the State of Ohio. There was an exclusion provision contained in the policy which provided that:

'None of the following are insureds . . . any person or organization, other than the named insured, with respect to any automobile . . . possession of which has been transferred to another pursuant to an agreement of sale . . ..'

On or about March 4, 1968 Warren Pierson, an employee of Sweeney, offered to buy a 1968 Pontiac automobile from Sweeney. On March 6, 1968 Pierson received delivery of the automobile and made application for a ten-day temporary Ohio license tag. As a trade-in on this automobile Pierson traded in a jeep which was delivered to Sweeney, although transfer of title had not taken place.

A purchase order was signed by Pierson in March with no date entered. The purchase order was not signed by Sweeney or any of his agents. Both Pierson and Sweeney signed a security agreement on March 8, 1968. On the same day Pierson made application for an Ohio certificate of title to his new Pontiac automobile which was not issued until March 15, 1968. Sweeney delivered to Pierson an owner's identification and new vehicle warranty form on March 9, 1968.

On March 10, 1968, while driving this automobile, Pierson, engaged in his own business, was involved in an accident in Kenton County, Kentucky. As a result of injuries sustained in the accident, the Napiers obtained judgments against Pierson and one Dawson Eubank. Eubank's insurance carrier satisfied the Napier judgment as to Eubank. The unsatisfied portion of the judgments against Pierson amounts to approximately $70,844.00.

The question presented is whether Pierson is an additional insured under the Selective policy issued to Sweeney so as to make Selective liable for satisfaction of the judgments obtained by the Napiers. The answer to this question hinges on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hatfield, 2001-SC-0969-DG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • December 18, 2003
    ...UIM coverage subject to the terms and conditions upon which the premium was based.) Siddons was reaffirmed in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Napier, Ky., 505 S.W.2d 169, 171-72 (1974) (insured injured while operating a vehicle insured by one policy was entitled to payment of UM coverage under bo......
  • Combs v. International Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 6, 2004
    ...happened to receive his or her deficient check. 1999 WL 701916, at *13 (emphasis added). 13. Plaintiff also cites Allstate Insurance Co. v. Napier, 505 S.W.2d 169 (Ky.1974) and Louisville Gas and Elec. Co. v. Employer's Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 548 S.W.2d 843 (Ky.Ct.App.1977). Both cases concer......
  • Grant v. Bill Walker Pontiac-Gmc, Inc., PONTIAC-GM
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 30, 1975
    ...transferred to another by the named insured pursuant to an agreement of sale." A similar provision was involved in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Napier, 505 S.W.2d 169 (Ky.1974), and was determined to exclude coverage of an employee of a car dealer who was involved in an accident while driving ......
  • Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stanfield
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • March 20, 1979
    ...vehicle insured and where the named insured has not rejected the coverage in writing. This view was confirmed in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Napier, Ky., 505 S.W.2d 169 (1974), and Siddons' construction of KRS 304.20-020 was followed in Zurich Insurance Co. v. Hall, Ky., 516 S.W.2d 861 The ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT