Christian v. Royal Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 28600.,No. 28601.,28600.,28601. |
| Citation | 240 N.W. 365,185 Minn. 180 |
| Parties | CHRISTIAN et al. v. ROYAL INS. CO. Limited, et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Le Sueur County; C. M. Tifft, Judge.
Separate actions by Ray C. Christian and by August Rennecke against the Royal Insurance Company, Limited, and another, tried together. Judgment was ordered in favor of the plaintiffs, respectively, and defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
Oppenheimer, Dickson, Hodgson, Brown & Donnelly, of St. Paul, for appellants.
Maugridge S. Robb, of Minneapolis, for respondents.
These two cases were tried together to the court without a jury. Judgment was ordered in favor of plaintiffs, for $625.10 and $824.97, respectively. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
The actions were for the recovery of amounts necessarily expended in defending the liability action hereinafter referred to. Plaintiffs claimed that action was one which defendants were obligated to defend under a policy issued to Christian, a dealer in farm implements and machinery, covering liability relative to a motor vehicle (truck). In the policy the companies agreed to indemnify Christian and any person or persons legally operating the truck with his permission, or legally responsible for its operation, against loss arising out of liability for bodily injuries sustained by any person or persons by accident, whether resulting fatally or otherwise, by reason of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the truck; and to defend in the name and on behalf of the assureds all claims or suits for damages for such bodily injuries for which they are or are alleged to be liable. The truck was used by Christian in carrying on his business. Rennecke was operating the truck in the course of his employment with the permission of Christian.
An accident occurred resulting in the death of one Hahn. S. J. Mauer, the administrator of his estate, brought an action to recover damages therefor against these plaintiffs. Proper notices of the accident and of the suit were given, as was also tender of the defense. Defendants finally, after much delay and consideration, refused to take on the defense, disclaiming any duty so to do. That action was defended by separate counsel employed by each of the defendants therein (plaintiffs here), and resulted in a directed verdict in their favor.
The claims of plaintiffs in the case before us are: (1) That the defendants had taken over and accepted the defense, and could not withdraw therefrom; (2) that, even if defendants had legally withdrawn from the defense so accepted, they had assigned a particular reason therefor (that the truck involved was not the one described in the policy), and hence were bound by such election, waiving all other possible defenses; (3) that the complaint in the original action against these plaintiffs, in addition to other stated causes of action not covered by the policy, did sufficiently allege a cause of action which was covered by the policy, being one arising out of negligence in the use, ownership, or maintenance of the truck.
The trial court found in favor of plaintiffs on all three propositions. We need, however, only consider the third, which, if correct justified the court in ordering judgments for plaintiffs. Where an action of an injured person is based upon various...
To continue reading
Request your trial