Bowlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Citation: 46 Tenn.App. 260,327 S.W.2d 66
• Parties: Kyle BOWLIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Decision Date: 26 February 1959
• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Page 66

327 S.W.2d 66

46 Tenn.App. 260

Kyle BOWLIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

Feb. 26, 1959.

Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court June 5, 1959.

Taylor & Inman, Morristown, for plaintiff in error.

W. J. Barron, Morristown, for defendant in error.

HOWARD, Judge.

Referring to the parties as they appeared below, the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, admits that the pleadings and issues are correctly stated in the plaintiff's brief, as follows:

'This case originated in the General Sessions Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee. The Civil warrant filed by the plaintiff, Kyle Bowlin, against the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleged that the defendant had issued its policy of liability insurance to the plaintiff, which policy contained, under Coverage 'C' therein, a medical-pay agreement; that the plaintiff, on February 15, 1958, was driving his pick-up truck insured by the policy of insurance when it became stalled in the snow; that he got out of the truck to push, while his wife steered, and injured his back while so pushing the truck, incurring medical expenses in the amount of $253.31 for which he sued.

'The suit was tried by the Sessions Judge, who rendered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court when the case was heard de novo by the Circuit Judge sitting without a jury, resulting in a judgment for defendant. Plaintiff seasonably made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. Plaintiff prayed and was granted an appeal to this Court, and seasonably perfected same.

* * *

* * *

'The facts of this case are not disputed. The plaintiff was the only witness to testify. On February 15, 1958, his pick-up truck became stalled in the snow. He called his wife from the house to drive the truck while he pushed. Plaintiff pushed the truck from the rear of the cab with his shoulder and hands, and, while pushing, felt a sharp sting and pain in his back. For this back injury he required hospitalization and medical treatment, and his expenses amounted to $253.31.

'At the time of his injury, there was in force and effect a policy of liability insurance on said truck, which policy contained a medical-pay clause or agreement, under Coverage 'C'.

'By this policy, the defendant agreed 'to pay reasonable expenses * * * to * * * each person who sustains bodily injury, caused by accident, while in or upon, entering into or alighting from * * * the automobile * * *'

'The defendant's liability is limited to $500.00.

'Counsel for the respective parties agreed that the only issue involved was whether or not the plaintiff had sustained an injury by accident within the meaning of Coverage C of his policy.'

Under Clause 'C' of the policy involved, the defendant becomes liable for medical expenses for 'bodily injury, caused by accident, while in or upon, entering into or alighting from, or through being struck by the automobile, * * *' We think that the language employed in stating the coverage...