Campbell v. Republic Indem. Co. of America
| Decision Date | 27 March 1957 |
| Citation | 308 P.2d 425,149 Cal.App.2d 476 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | John A. CAMPBELL, Jr., Pauline Campbell and John A. Campbell, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 21930. |
Raymond R. Roberts, Van Nuys, for appellants.
Wyman & Finell, Beverly Hills, for respondent.
Republic Indemnity Company of America issued its policy of automobile liability insurance to Mr. and Mrs. John A. Campbell, Jr., for the year commencing March 15, 1954. Attached to the policy was the following endorsement: 'Additional Declaration * * * (b) There is no operator of the automobile under 25 years of age resident in the Named Insured's household or employed as a chauffeur of the automobile.' On October 17, 1954, the insured automobile became involved in two collisions while being driven by John Alexander Campbell, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Campbell, who was then 18 years of age.
The present action is by the Campbells for a declaration that Republic Indemnity Company is obligated to defend actions for personal injuries and property damage arising out of the said collisions and to pay all damages within the policy limits. Defendant denied coverage and filed a cross-complaint for reformation of the policy.
The material allegations of the cross-complaint are as follows: That Ruth T. Ronk is a licensed insurance agent and authorized to do business on defendant's behalf. That prior to March 15, 1954, plaintiffs and defendant (acting through Mrs. Ronk) entered into an agreement whereby defendant was to issue a policy of insurance covering the operation of a 1949 Chevrolet automobile against bodily injury, property damage liability, medical payments and collision damage; it was the mutual understanding of plaintiffs and defendant (acting through Mrs. Ronk) that the policy to be issued would provide no insurance coverage at any time when the Chevrolet was operated by John Alexander Campbell; in view of this specific understanding, defendant issued its policy to the Campbells at a preferential premium rate; affixed to the policy was the endorsement which we have already quoted; pursuant to the understanding of the parties, said endorsement should have read as follows: 'It is agreed that no insurance is afforded by any provision of this policy or of any endorsement attached hereto or issued to form a part hereof while any insured vehicle is being operated, maintained or sued by or under the control of a person under 25 years of age;' the policy failed to embody the real agreement of the parties as the result of a mutual mistake. The prayer of the cross-complaint was that the policy be reformed so as to express their true understanding.
The court made findings and entered judgment reforming the policy. Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied and they appeal from the judgment.
There was evidence of the following facts. Mrs. Campbell bought a used Chevrolet automobile in the spring of 1952 and purchased liability insurance with the Harbor Insurance Company through Mrs. Ronk, who was an authorized agent of that company as well as of defendant. Plaintiffs' son was then living at home. He was driving the Chevrolet and was protected by the Harbor policy, which his mother renewed in March 1953 on the same terms. In June 1953, Mrs. Campbell told Mrs. Ronk that her son's driver's license had been suspended and requested that he be taken off the policy. Harbor accordingly attached an exclusionary rider and Mrs. Campbell was given a prorate refund of the premium.
The policy with Harbor expired in March 1954, at which time Mrs. Campbell's son was in the armed forces and no longer residing with his parents. Mrs. Ronk transferred the insurance on the Chevrolet to defendant company. Mrs. Campbell testified that she had a conversation with Mrs. Ronk about the new policy and told her that she wanted 'the same kind of policy' with Republic that she had carried with Harbor. She testified that her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hess v. Ford Motor Co.
...entitled to a directed verdict on the Release issue despite the contractual language. (See Campbell v. Republic Indemnity Co. of America (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 476, 480, 308 P.2d 425 [where "[t]here was no conflict in the evidence as to the material facts," reformation of the contract "could......
-
Vaughan v. Mahurin
...was other than that stated in the Mahurin Family Trust. In support of this position, they cite only one case—Campbell v. Republic Indemnity Co. (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 476, having to do with the reformation of an automobile insurance policy. (Id. at pp. 477-478.) In Campbell v. Republic Indem......
-
Treadaway v. Camellia Convalescent Hospitals, Inc.
...Cal.2d 659, 663, 297 P.2d 638; Shupe v. Nelson (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 693, 699--700, 62 Cal.Rptr. 352; Campbell v. Republic Indemnity Co. (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 476, 479--480, 308 P.2d 425; Renshaw v. Happy Valley Water Co. (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 521, 524--525, 250 P.2d Accordingly, since plai......
-
Shapiro v. Republic Indem. Co. of America
...control of a person under twenty-five (25) years of age.' The judgment of reformation was affirmed on appeal. Campbell v. Republic Indemnity Co., 149 Cal.App.2d 476, 308 P.2d 425. Defendant contends that plaintiffs' rights under the policy must be measured by its terms as reformed and that ......