Colonial Ins. Co. v. Ramsey
| Decision Date | 13 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. LR-C-88-14.,LR-C-88-14. |
| Parties | COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Landon RAMSEY, Leonard Hockenberry, and City of Little Rock, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Edwin L. Lowther and Nate Coulter, Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff.
Jerry W. Stewart, Benton, Ark., for defendant Landon Ramsey.
Mark R. Hayes, Ass't City Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for defendants Leonard Hockenberry and City of Little Rock.
Pending now is the motion for summary judgment of the plaintiff, Colonial Insurance Company, against the defendants, Landon Ramsey, Leonard Hockenberry and the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
On May 17, 1987 the plaintiff, Colonial Insurance Company (Colonial), issued an automobile liability insurance policy to the defendant, Leonard Hockenberry. The next day, while driving a wrecker owned by the defendant, City of Little Rock, Hockenberry collided with the Ford Bronco driven by the defendant, Landon Ramsey. Ramsey, who has since recovered a judgment against Hockenberry, contends that the vehicle driven by Hockenberry is covered by Colonial's insurance policy, and that he is now entitled to maintain a direct action against Colonial under Arkansas law. Colonial brings this diversity action asking the court to declare that the vehicle driven by Hockenberry is not a "car" within the coverage of its policy. Hockenberry and the City of Little Rock take no position in this case.
The facts material to the resolution of this case are not in dispute. The police department's accident report describes the vehicle driven by Hockenberry as a 1974 International Loadstar wrecker, license-type "truck." In his affidavit, the supervisor of the city's vehicles, Barry C. Nichols, states that the wrecker had a gross vehicle weight of between 18,000 and 24,000 pounds, and was used for towing loaded, medium-duty vehicles or heavy-duty vehicles that are too large for the smaller wreckers. Nichols further describes the wrecker as having six wheels and a passenger cab that resembles that of a large pickup truck with one bench seat.
Tommy Tolliver, who is self-employed in the auto body repair and used car sales business, has also submitted an affidavit in which he describes various characteristics of the wrecker. He states that although the wrecker has six tires, it has only two axles and on each side of the rear axle is one wheel consisting of two rims bolted together with a place for two tires. He further states that the bolted rims turn together as one wheel and, therefore, the wrecker is a four-wheeled vehicle. A photograph of the wrecker is included in the file.
The question now before the court on Colonial's motion for summary judgment is whether the City of Little Rock's International Loadstar wrecker is an insured vehicle under the policy issued by Colonial to Hockenberry.
The policy in question is written in an "Easy to Read, Easy to Understand" format which contains several definitions. An insured car under the policy is "any car described in the declarations and any car or utility car the insured replaces it with, or any car or utility trailer the insured uses, that is not owned by the insured." The word "car" is defined as "a licensed and registered four-wheel car of the private passenger type designed for use upon a public road." (emphasis added) Colonial argues that these definitions are unambiguous and that an International Loadstar wrecker, such as Hockenberry was driving, is plainly not the type of "car" which it contracted to insure. The court agrees.
In construing an insurance policy a commonsense approach should be used to fairly and reasonably ascertain and carry out the intent of the parties. Wommack v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co., 323 F.Supp. 981 (W.D. Ark.1971). Terms should be taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense. Id.; CNA Insurance Co. v. McGinnis, 282 Ark. 90, 666 S.W.2d 689 (1984); American Homestead Insurance Co. v. Denny, 238 Ark. 749, 384 S.W.2d 492 (1964). The court is bound by policy definitions, and where there is no ambiguity the court should decide as a matter of law how the policy should be construed. Enterprise Tools, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of U.S., 799 F.2d 437 (8th Cir.1986) (Arkansas Law); Horn v. Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Co., 5 Ark.App. 277, 636 S.W.2d 302 (1982). Resort to rules of construction is unnecessary in the absence of ambiguity. Id.
In a case similar to the one at bar, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the provision of an insurance policy defining automobile as "a four-wheeled passenger motor vehicle exclusively of the pleasure car type" was not ambiguous, and that a half-ton pickup truck did not fall within that definition. See National Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Abbott, 248 Ark. 1115, 455 S.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colonial Ins. Co. v. Ramsey
...1092 Colonial Insurance Co. v. Ramsey NO. 88-1908 United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. NOV 10, 1988 Appeal From: E.D.Ark. 684 F.Supp. 1016 AFFIRMED * 8th Cir.Rule 14. ...