Arizona Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Bernal

Decision Date13 January 1922
Docket NumberCivil 1912
Citation23 Ariz. 276,203 P. 338
PartiesARIZONA MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. MARIANA BERNAL, an Infant, by JESUS BERNAL, Her Guardian Ad Litem, Appellee
CourtArizona Supreme Court

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Samuel L. Pattee, Judge. Affirmed.

Mr Richard E. Sloan, Mr. C. R. Holton, and Mr. Greig Scott, for Appellant.

Mr George O. Hilzinger and Mr. Edwin F. Jones, for Appellee.

OPINION

FLANIGAN, J.

The appellee, Mariana Bernal, suing by her guardian ad litem, having recovered a judgment against one Manuel Miranda for the sum of $3,000 and costs for injuries sustained by her because of the negligent operation of an automobile by Miranda, brought suit for the payment of said judgment against the appellant, Arizona Mutual Auto Insurance Company, basing her cause of action against the company on the terms of a certain policy of indemnity issued by it to Miranda, as the owner and user of said car in carrying passengers for hire. The court below rendered judgment in favor of appellee, and on this appeal, the question for determination is whether the admitted facts support the judgment.

By the policy so issued the company agreed to indemnify the assured Miranda "against loss by reason of the liability imposed by law upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries, including death resulting therefrom, accidentally suffered or alleged to have been suffered while this policy is in force by any person or persons not employed by the assured, or not at the time members of his family, by reason of the ownership, maintenance or use" of said automobile by Miranda while carrying passengers for hire; and also agreed to defend in the name and on behalf of the assured any suits, even if groundless, brought against the assured to recover damages on account of such happenings, and to pay by way of indemnification only not more than the sum of $5,000 "for loss from accident resulting in bodily injuries to, or in the death of, one person," such engagements on the part of the company being made, however, subject to the following conditions:

"A. The assured, upon occurrence of an accident shall give immediate written notice thereof, with the fullest information obtainable at the time, to the company's home office at Phoenix, Arizona, or to its duly authorized agent. If a claim is made on account of such accident, the assured shall give like notice thereof. If, thereafter, any suit is brought against the assured to enforce such a claim, the assured shall immediately forward to the company every summons or other process served on him. The company reserves the right to settle any claim or suit. Whenever requested by the company the assured shall aid in the effecting settlements, securing information and evidence, the attendance of witnesses, and in prosecuting appeals, and shall at all times render to the company all co-operation and assistance within his power. . . .

"C. No action shall lie against the company to recover under any of the agreements herein contained, unless brought by the assured personally to recover money actually expended by him in satisfaction of claim or liability imposed by due process of law, resulting from injuries actually caused by reason of the ownership, maintenance, and use of said automobiles. . . ." The policy was issued with an "endorsement" reading as follows:

"Endorsement.

"In consideration of the premium at which this policy is written and in further consideration of the acceptance by the Arizona Corporation Commission of this policy as a compliance with orders No. -- , it is understood and agreed that, regardless of any of the conditions of this policy, same shall cover passengers as well as other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Madouros v. Kansas City Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1936
    ... ... Wash. 543, 219 P. 12; Arizona Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v ... Bernal, 23 Ariz. 276, 203 P ... ...
  • Madouros v. K.C. Coca Cola Bot. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1936
    ...right-thinking persons. And such privity is found to be upheld in Finkelberg v. Continental Gas Co., 126 Wash. 543; Arizona Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Bernal, 23 Ariz. 276; Gugliemetta v. Graham, 50 Cal. App. 268; Stusser v. Mutual Union Ins. Co., 127 Wash. 444. See also as tending toward the ......
  • Allen v. Canal Ins. Co., Greenville, S. C.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 7, 1968
    ...be relieved by the failure of the insured to cooperate. To so hold would defeat the very purpose of the act. Arizona Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Bernal, 23 Ariz. 276, 203 P. 338; Illinois Casualty Co. v. Krol, 324 Ill.App. 478, 58 N.E.2d 473; Roberts v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 28......
  • Robertson v. The Board of County Commissioners of The County of Labette
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1927
    ... ... 543, 36 C. J. 1132; American ... Automobile Ins. Co. v. Struwe, 218 S.W. 534 [Tex. Civ ... App.]; Arizona Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Bernal, 23 ... Ariz. 276.) ... The ... ...
  • 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