BUCKEYE UNION CASUALTY COMPANY v. Bell, 12063.
Decision Date | 26 November 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 12063.,12063. |
Citation | 249 F.2d 211 |
Parties | The BUCKEYE UNION CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert E. BELL et al., Defendants (Robert E. Bell, Appellant). |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
David E. Rosenfeld, Robert G. Wolfe, Rosenfeld, Wolfe & Allen, Terre Haute, Ind., for defendant-appellant.
Benjamin G. Cox, Gambill, Dudley, Cox, Phillips & Gambill, Terre Haute, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and HASTINGS, Circuit Judges.
Robert E. Bell, defendant, has appealed from orders of the district court denying certain defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and from its judgment adjudicating that plaintiff has no obligation to defendant Robert E. Bell (hereinafter referred to as "defendant"), the named insured in an automobile liability policy issued by plaintiff, in respect to an automobile accident occurring in Pennsylvania while said policy was in effect.
Plaintiff's action sought a declaratory judgment that it is not required by said policy to defend Robert E. Bell or anybody else in another action pending in the court below or to pay any judgment that might be recovered in that action. The other pending action (referred to herein as the "Weigle case") is Virginia J. Weigle, administratrix, et al., v. Ralph E. Brill, administrator of the estate of Joseph Bell, deceased, et al. In the case before us plaintiff sued the persons who are plaintiffs in the Weigle case,1 said defendant Robert E. Bell and Ralph E. Brill, administrator of the estate of Joseph Bell, deceased.2
It is admitted that no material fact issues exist in this case. The undisputed relevant facts we now state.
The Weigle case plaintiffs charged Joseph Bell with negligence in the operation of a certain motor vehicle which was involved in a collision on April 17, 1955. That vehicle was not owned by defendant or by Joseph Bell, now deceased, or described in said policy. The Weigle case raises issues concerning the liability, if any, of defendant to the plaintiffs in that case. The Weigle complaint alleged, inter alia:
"Prior to the time of the collision complained of herein the defendant Robert E. Bell signed Joseph Bell\'s application for an Indiana Motor Vehicle Operator\'s License, and in so doing the defendant Robert E. Bell made a written undertaking as a part of said application wherein the defendant Robert E. Bell agreed to be responsible, jointly and severally with the said Joseph Bell, for any injury or damage which said Joseph Bell might cause by reason of Joseph Bell\'s operation of a motor vehicle in all cases where Joseph Bell is liable in damages."3
The policy provides bodily injury and property damage liability and comprehensive coverage for a certain described Pontiac automobile. Item 5 of the "Declarations" in the policy describes the purpose for which the Pontiac is to be used as "business and pleasure."
The policy recites that plaintiff agrees with defendant, in part:
In a part of the policy entitled "Exclusions", it is provided, in part:
In that part of the policy entitled "Conditions", it is provided, in part:
* * *"
Also:
Count II of plaintiff's complaint averred the following (summarized) facts, which are admitted by defendants' answer:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Britt v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York
...Trucking Company and within a radius of 50 miles of Johnson City, Tennessee. Such a limitation is proper. Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Bell, C. A.7th (1957), 249 F.2d 211, 212-215, certiorari denied (1958), 356 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 704, 2 L.Ed.2d 716; Brown v. Tennessee Auto Ins. Co. (1951),......
-
Klatt v. Zera
...252 P. 672, and Marple v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 1927, 82 Cal.App. 137, 255 P. 260. * * *' The case of Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Bell, 7 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 211, has been cited in the brief in behalf of Milwaukee Auto as reaching the opposite result. There is nothing in the opin......
-
Selleck v. Westfield Ins. Co.
...applies here and that the trial court properly denied Selleck's motion for garnishment. The analysis in Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Bell (7th Cir.1957), 249 F.2d 211, cert. denied, 356 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 704, 2 L.Ed.2d 716, applies and is dispositive. In Buckeye, the Seventh Circuit consi......
-
Janet Helen Alexander and James F. Alexander v. Mary David, 90-LW-3196
... ... PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party ... See Buckeye Union ... Casualty Co. y. Bell (C.A. 7, ... ...