Columbia Casualty Co. v. Lyle, 7714.
Decision Date | 21 February 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 7714.,7714. |
Parties | COLUMBIA CASUALTY CO. v. LYLE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Lamar Cecil, of Beaumont, Tex., for appellant.
J. Austin Barnes, of Beaumont, Tex., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
Appellee, struck and injured by a truck owned by Yount and driven by Jolivet, a negro farm hand, sued them both for damages. The jury found Jolivet negligent, but that at the time and place in question he was not driving the truck in the furtherance of the business of Yount. From the judgment entered on that verdict for plaintiff against Jolivet for the damage suffered, $5,484, but that he take nothing against Yount, there was no appeal. Appellee then brought this suit to make his judgment out of appellant, as insurer in an automobile insurance policy issued on the truck to Yount, and/or Yount-Lee Oil Company, as named assureds. His claim was that, when the truck struck him, Jolivet was driving it with the permission of Yount, the named assured, and was therefore covered by it as "additional assured."
The defense was that Jolivet was not covered by the policy as "additional assured" both because at the time of the collision the truck was being used for purposes not covered by the policy and because it was being driven, not only without permission from the named assured to do so, but against his orders.
Both plaintiff and defendant moving at the close of the evidence for an instructed verdict, the District Judge took the case from the jury and determined it in plaintiff's favor. It is here on the sole point of law that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to appellee, demanded a verdict for appellant. Fourth National Bank in Wichita v. Gainesville National Bank in Gainesville (C.C.A.) 80 F.(2d) 490; Globe Indemnity Company v. Nodlere (C.C.A.) 69 F.(2d) 955. We think it did.
Among the pertinent insuring agreements are:
The pertinent exclusions are:
Conditions:
Insolvency of Assured: "(E) The insolvency or bankruptcy of Assured shall not release the Company from payment of damages sustained or loss occasioned during the life of the policy, and if execution against Assured in an action for damages is returned unsatisfied because of such insolvency or bankruptcy, the injured or his personal representative in case of death, may maintain an action against the company for the amount of the judgment obtained not exceeding the limits of the policy."
No testimony was offered at all contradicting the finding of the jury in the damage suit that in driving the truck at the time and place of the injury Jolivet was not engaged in the furtherance of the business of Yount, the named assured. None was offered to the effect that he was driving with Yount's express permission. It was claimed by appellee, and the evidence he introduced was for the purpose of establishing, that Jolivet was driving with Yount's implied permission. These are the facts as testified to by Yount, Helmke, his farm manager, and Jolivet, a workman on the farm, on which appellee relies to make this a jury issue.
Yount, owning a farm near Beaumont, employed Frank Helmke as caretaker and Jolivet as helper. He had intrusted Helmke with the truck in question under the strictest orders that no one but Helmke should drive it off the farm. The farm was being cleared and beautified as a personal hobby. Nothing was raised for sale or sold from it. Helmke, however, was authorized to use the truck, and did use it, to bring milk and eggs and other produce from the farm to Yount's house. Yount at no time either authorized or permitted any one else to authorize or knew that Jolivet had been or would be permitted to drive the truck on the public highways. On the day in question Helmke, on his own responsibility, and as he admits, directly contrary to Yount's positive orders, permitted Jolivet to use the truck to take some wood and milk to Jolivet's house for Jolivet's personal use. He, however, gave him positive instructions not to use the truck except to go straight to his home and back. When the accident occurred, Jolivet was driving from his home to the home of a woman who helped him with his children, on a personal errand of his own.
He was therefore using the truck not only without, and directly contrary to, any permission or authority from Yount, but contrary also to the direct orders of Helmke. Yount testified that he gave general and positive instructions to Helmke that he alone was to drive the truck; that no one else could do so. Helmke, at one place in his testimony, said:
At other places in his testimony he said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. Woodby, 12769-12770.
...the first permittee transfers possession and use of the car to another user contrary to the instructions of the owner. Columbia Casualty Co. v. Lyle, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 281; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Mann, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 465, 467; Globe Indemnity Co. v. Nodlere, 10 Cir., 69 F.2......
-
Locke v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp.
...had permission to use directly from the named assured, is not an additional assured under the omnibus coverage clause. Columbia Casualty Co. v. Lyle, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 281;American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Jones, 163 Tenn. 605, 45 S.W.2d 52, 53;United States F. & G. Co. v. Mann, 4 Cir., 73 F.2d......
-
Hodges v. Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp.
...N.E. 506, 507; Id., 118 Ohio St. 217, 160 N.E. 704; Frederiksen v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 9 Cir., 26 F.2d 76; Columbia Cas. Co. v. Lyle, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 281; Powers v. Wells, 115 Pa.Super. 549, 176 A. Byrne v. Continental Cas. Co., 301 Ill.App. 447, 23 N.E.2d 175. Several interl......
-
Mycek v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
...v. Sanders, 169 Okl. 378, 380, 36 P.2d 271; Dickinson v. Great American Indemnity Co., 296 Mass. 368, 6 N.E.2d 439; Columbia Casualty Co. v. Lyle, 5 Cir, 81 F.2d 281, 284; 13, 14 Huddy, Cyclopedia Automobile Law, 9th Ed, 407-409; 72 A.L.R. 1375, 1398; 85 A.L.R. 20, 67; 126 A.L.R. 544, 550. ......