Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J. v. Copeland
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | JEFFERSON; FILES, P.J., and KINGSLEY |
| Citation | 248 Cal.App.2d 561,56 Cal.Rptr. 794 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dorothy COPELAND, James Copeland, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 29344. |
| Decision Date | 15 February 1967 |
Page 794
v.
Dorothy COPELAND, James Copeland, Defendants and Appellants.
Page 796
[248 Cal.App.2d 562] James W. Thomason, Anaheim, for defendants and appellants.
Clausen & Gilliland, Kenneth H. Clausen, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
JEFFERSON, Associate Justice.
The plaintiff insurance company brought an action, seeking a declaration that all claims against it under the uninsured motorist coverage provided in a policy issued by plaintiff to defendants Dorothy and James Copeland, have been settled by a binding release executed by defendants; and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants from proceeding with the arbitration of these claims. The case was submitted to the court on the depositions of defendants, two doctors, an insurance agent and an insurance adjuster; plus certain medical records and documents signed by defendants which related to their claims. From a judgment granting the relief sought, defendants appeal.
On October 15, 1961, Mr. and Mrs. Copeland were in their car, with Mr. Copeland driving and Mrs. Copeland seated beside him in the front seat, when they stopped at an intersection and were struck from the rear by another car, its driver allegedly uninsured. After the collision Mrs. Copeland was still seated on the seat in an upright position. Her neck began to hurt almost immediately. The next day she went to see Dr. Ryan complaining of a stiff neck. He examined her and had x-rays taken of her neck with negative results. On October 23rd she returned to Dr. Ryan's office with the same complaint. For these two visits and the x-rays Mrs. Copeland was charged $37.00.
Sometime in the early part of November 1961, Mrs. Copeland[248 Cal.App.2d 563] began to feel pain in her low back area. A small ache at first but in a few days it became quite severe. On December 15, 1961, she went to Dr. Sherwood, a chiropractor. After several treatments the low back pain was not as severe but it still remained to some extent at all times thereafter. On January 23, 1962, Mrs. Copeland signed and submitted to plaintiff a proof of claim form under the uninsured motorist coverage. In it she described her injury as a stiff neck. On February 6, 1962, she and Mr. Copeland executed a document titled 'Release of Claims for Benefits on Account of Bodily Injury or Death Caused by Uninsured Automobiles.' As consideration for the release they received $50.00. At that time, although she 'didn't know' that the low back pains were caused by the accident, she 'had thought of it.' On the same date the Copelands also executed a receipt and release form, under the medical payments coverage, for the sum of $37.00, the cost of the treatment for her sore neck and from which injury she had at that time nearly fully recovered. On February 16, 1962, when her low back pains began to get more severe, she went again to Dr. Sherwood for treatment and, when they grew still worse, on February 24, she went to Dr. Hawkins. She told the latter her back pains were caused by the automobile accident.
Dr. Hawkins had x-rays taken of Mrs. Copeland. The x-rays showed evidence of disc degeneration in her low back together with arthritic spurring. Hawkins testified (by deposition) that these conditions take several years to develop and that almost any kind of trauma will bring on the onset of symptoms or complaints; 'it could have been related to the accident,' but he 'would expect some signs of back pain, or stiffness within a few days or instantly' if an accident occurred of sufficient severity to injure the disc 'right then and there.' The conditions from which Mrs. Copeland suffered could also have come on gradually without accident or trauma; or from doing nothing more than bending over or sneezing, something so commonplace a person would not be aware of it; that it is 'just anybody's guess' as to what caused the symptoms to appear.
Page 797
On October 3, 1962, Mrs. Copeland filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association under the uninsured motorist...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Espy v. Espy
...or to whom it accrues, to the person against whom it might have been demanded or enforced.' " (Commercial Ins. Co. v. Copeland (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 565, 56 Cal.Rptr. 794.) So understood, the property settlement cannot be construed to bar Alys's claims. The defense of release was waive......
-
Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...476; Fisher v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 749, 751, 52 Cal.Rptr. 721; Commercial Ins. Co. v. Copeland (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 564, 56 Cal.Rptr. 794; Pacific Indem. Co. v. Superior Court (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 63, 67, 54 Cal.Rptr. 470; Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Ruiz (......
-
Espy v. Espy, A024253.
...or to whom it accrues, to the person against whom it might have been demanded or enforced.' " (Commercial Ins. Co. v. Copeland (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 565, 56 Cal.Rptr. 794.) So understood, the property settlement cannot be construed to bar Alys's claims. The defense of release was waive......
-
Felner v. Meritplan Ins. Co.
...limits (Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 260 Cal.App.2d 105, 67 Cal.Rptr. 175); Scope of release (Commercial Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 56 Cal.Rptr. Period of limitation (Pacific Indem. Co. v. Superior Court, 246 Cal.App.2d 63, 54 Cal.Rptr. 470); Imputed contributory negligenc......
-
Espy v. Espy
...or to whom it accrues, to the person against whom it might have been demanded or enforced.' " (Commercial Ins. Co. v. Copeland (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 565, 56 Cal.Rptr. 794.) So understood, the property settlement cannot be construed to bar Alys's claims. The defense of release was waive......
-
Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...476; Fisher v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 749, 751, 52 Cal.Rptr. 721; Commercial Ins. Co. v. Copeland (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 564, 56 Cal.Rptr. 794; Pacific Indem. Co. v. Superior Court (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 63, 67, 54 Cal.Rptr. 470; Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Ruiz (......
-
Espy v. Espy, A024253.
...or to whom it accrues, to the person against whom it might have been demanded or enforced.' " (Commercial Ins. Co. v. Copeland (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 565, 56 Cal.Rptr. 794.) So understood, the property settlement cannot be construed to bar Alys's claims. The defense of release was waive......
-
Felner v. Meritplan Ins. Co.
...limits (Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 260 Cal.App.2d 105, 67 Cal.Rptr. 175); Scope of release (Commercial Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 56 Cal.Rptr. Period of limitation (Pacific Indem. Co. v. Superior Court, 246 Cal.App.2d 63, 54 Cal.Rptr. 470); Imputed contributory negligenc......