Blixt v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 31766.

• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska
• Citation: 145 Neb. 717,18 N.W.2d 78
• Docket Number: No. 31766.,31766.
• Parties: BLIXT v. HOME MUT. INS. CO.
• Decision Date: 16 March 1945

145 Neb. 717
18 N.W.2d 78

BLIXT
v.
HOME MUT. INS. CO.

No. 31766.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 16, 1945.

Appeal from District Court, Custer County; Reed, Judge.

Action by Elof E. Blixt against the Home Mutual Insurance Company for recovery of the costs of repair of an automobile under an insurance policy insuring against damage by collision. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Judgment reversed and the action dismissed.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The legislature may not validly in a regulatory act under the police power invade the right of contract, impair rights of property or restrict the courts in the consideration of evidence and the determination of title and ownership of property and contractual rights and obligations.

2. A provision in an automobile liability insurance policy providing automatic insurance on a newly acquired automobile for ten days is for the benefit of the insured and is effective from the date of acquisition of the newly acquired automobile notwithstanding the existence of infirmities in the title thereto.

L. R. Doyle, of Lincoln, and Schaper & Runyan, of Broken Bow, for appellant.

Roy E. Blixt, of Brewster, and Kelly & Deming and Evans & Lee, all of Broken Bow, for appellee.

Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and PAINE, CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, CHAPPELL, and WENKE, JJ.

YEAGER, Justice.

This is an action by Elof E. Blixt, plaintiff and appellee, against Home Mutual Insurance Company of Iowa, defendant and

[18 N.W.2d 79]

appellant, for recovery of the costs of repair of a Dodge automobile claimed to be due from defendant to plaintiff under an insurance contract insuring plaintiff in the first instance against loss or damage to a Chevrolet automobile owned by him.

The case was tried to the court, a jury having been waived, which resulted in judgment in favor of plaintiff for $335. The defendant has appealed.

The pertinent facts are not in dispute. On or about March 21, 1940, plaintiff procured from the defendant an insurance policy insuring a Chevrolet automobile against damage by collision. The advance premium was $16. It provided that in case of accident and damage to the automobile an additional premium of $25 should be paid. While the insurance was upon the Chevrolet described, the policy contemplated that the insured might exchange it for another automobile which other automobile, within certain specified limits and conditions, would be protected by the policy. The policy contained the following provisions covering such a contingency: ‘Automatic Insurance for Newly Acquired Automobiles. If the named Insured who is the owner of the automobile acquires ownership of another automobile, such insurance as is afforded by this Policy applies also to such other automobile as of the date of its delivery to him, subject to the following additional conditions: * * * (2) if the Company does not insure all automobiles owned by the named Insured at the date of such delivery, insurance applies to such automobile, if it replaces an automobile described in this Policy and may be classified for the purpose of use stated in this Policy, but only to the extent applicable to the replaced automobile; (3) the insurance afforded by this Policy automatically terminates upon the replaced automobile at the date of such delivery; and (4) this agreement does not apply * * * (b) unless the named Insured notifies the Company within ten days following the date of delivery of such other automobile, * * * (d) unless the named Insured pays any...