Brown v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 01 November 1957 |
Citation | 306 S.W.2d 836 |
Parties | Charles E. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Franklin & Franklin, Madisonville, for appellant.
Gordon, Gordon & Mills, Madisonville, for appellee.
This appeal if from a diclaratory judgment holding that appellee Company is not liable to appellant on an automobile indemnity insurance policy it issued to him covering a Studebaker car because the accident occurred while he was operating a Ford car, which was not covered by the terms of the policy. The Company's liability under the policy is limited to $25,000.
There is no contrariety in the facts which were stipulated. On June 13, 1955, the Company issued appellant an indemnity policy on his 1948 Studebaker automobile. On the day the policy was issued appellant also owned a 1947 Ford automobile, as well as a 2-ton Ford Truck, neither of which was covered by the policy. The Ford car had no engine in it on the day the policy was issued and could not be operated. In July 1955, appellant purchased a new motor for this Ford and on or about August 15th, his Studebaker became inoperable and he ceased driving it on that date. He had an engine installed in his Ford car, put it in driving condition and began using it. He did not operate his Studebaker thereafter and had its engine removed.
On or about August 25, 1955, while driving this Ford appellant had an accident in which three persons riding with him were injured. Immediately after this accident he notified the Company thereof and requested it to defend him against any suits the injured persons might bring. On November 23rd, the Company wrote appellant a letter in which it denied all liability under section IV of the policy, a copy of which is filed with the stipulation. The applicable sections read:
'(a) Automobile. Except where stated to the contrary, the word 'automobile' means:
* * *
* * *
It is the contention of appellant that his Ford car replaced the Studebaker on August 15, 1955, and he ceased operating it on that date. He says that on August 25th he had a collision while driving his Ford and as he notified the Company of that collision within thirty days after he replaced the Studebaker with the Ford he complied with the above quoted provisions of the policy that he 'notify the company within thirty days following the date of the delivery to him * * * of the newly acquired automobile.' He argues the policy covered any car which replaced the Studebaker, providing he notified the Company of the replacement within thirty days after the time the replacement occurred, and provided he only had one automobile in operation at one time.
Appellant gives Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LaSalle Nat. Ins. Co. v. Popham
...61, 239 N.E.2d 498; Howe v. Crumley, Jones & Crumley Co., Ohio App., 44 Ohio Law Abst. 115, 57 N.E.2d 415; Brown v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., (Ky.App.) 306 S.W.2d 836; Marquez v. Dairyland Mutual Ins. Co., 78 N.M. 269, 430 P.2d 766; State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Shaffer, 250 N.C......
-
Stockberger v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co.
...P.2d 1026; Illinois National Insurance Co. v. Trainer et al. (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 34, 272 N.E.2d 58; Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (Ky.App.1957), 306 S.W.2d 836; Mahaffey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (La.App.1965), 175 So.2d 905; Collard v. Globe I......
-
Dike v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
...61, 239 N.E.2d 498; Howe v. Crumley, Jones & Crumley Co., Ohio App., 44 Ohio Law Abst. 115, 57 N.E.2d 415; Brown v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (Ky.App.) 306 S.W.2d 836; Marquez v. Dairyland Mutual Ins. Co., 78 N.M. 269, 430 P.2d 766; State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Shaffer, 250 N.......
-
Murry v. Bankers Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...North Side Metal, Inc., 162 F.Supp. 72 (S.D. 111, 1958).4 Cornelius v. Fields, La.App. 1 Cir., 122 So.2d 704; Brown v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., Ky., 306 S.W.2d 836 (1957); Utilities Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 207 Okl. 574, 251 P.2d 175 (1952); Shipman v. Federal Mutual Insurance Company, ......