Blixt v. Home Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | 31766. |
| Citation | 18 N.W.2d 78,145 Neb. 717 |
| Parties | BLIXT v. HOME MUT. INS. CO. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
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.
This is an action by Elof E. Blixt, plaintiff and appellee, against Home Mutual Insurance Company of Iowa, defendant and 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: On November 9, 1940, plaintiff exchanged the Chevrolet for the Dodge in question here. For the Dodge he gave in exchange the Chevrolet and a bank check for $390. From that date on he had the possession of and used the Dodge in his business and activities as he had formerly used the Chevrolet. Although he had possession of the Dodge thenceforth and the license plates of the Chevrolet were attached to it his title was not assigned to him until November 20, 1940, which assignment did not reach him until probably November 29, 1940, and certainly not earlier than November 27, 1940. On December 2, 1940, the collision occurred which is the basis of the action. On the same day the agent of the defendant was notified of the accident and on the same day or the next the defendant received notice for the first time that the Chevrolet had been displaced by the Dodge.
The plaintiff filed proof of loss and defendant denied liability on the ground that the Dodge was not covered by the insurance policy, for the reason that notice was not given of the replacement within ten days as was required by the terms of the policy. The question of whether or not notice was given within ten days within the meaning of the terms of the policy is the only issue presented by the pleadings and evidence.
The plaintiff predicates his cause of action on the proposition that though he had possession and use of the Dodge from November 9, 1940, yet...
To continue reading
Request your trial