Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Blankenship, 9130.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1943
• Docket Number: No. 9130.,9130.
• Citation: 134 F.2d 784
• Parties: COMMERCIAL STANDARD INS. CO. v. BLANKENSHIP et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

134 F.2d 784 (1943)

COMMERCIAL STANDARD INS. CO. v. BLANKENSHIP et al.

No. 9130.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 6, 1943.

John M. Cate, of Nashville, Tenn. (John M. Cate and Cate & Cate, all of Nashville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant.

C. W. Tuley and D. L. Lansden, both of Nashville, Tenn. (C. W. Tuley, D. L. Lansden, Armistead, Waller, Davis & Lansden, and Roberts & Roberts, all of Nashville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellees.

Before ALLEN, HAMILTON, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

McALLISTER, Circuit Judge.

In a bill for a declaratory judgment, the Commercial Standard Insurance Company alleged that a certain automobile liability insurance policy, which it had issued, did not cover the use and operation of an automobile which had caused injury to appellee, Mrs. W. G. Blankenship, and asked for judgment to that effect. The district court held that appellant was subject to liability thereon; and the insurance company appeals.

The policy, issued to Helen Hester, provided that appellant would insure her against liability for injuries caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the automobile. It was stated in the policy: "The purposes for which the automobile is to be used are Pleasure & Business. (a) The term `pleasure and business' is defined as personal, pleasure, family and business use, excluding any commercial delivery. (b)The term `commercial' is defined as the transportation or delivery of goods, merchandise or other materials, and uses incidental thereto, in direct connection with the named insured's business occupation as expressed in Item 1." The business or occupation of the insured, as set forth in Item 1, was "Clerk — Richland Market."

Miss Hester, the insured, was employed as a clerk for the Richland Market in Nashville, Tennessee, at the time the policy in question was issued; and she continued to be so employed at all times during the life of the policy. Shortly after its issuance, she became interested as a partner with J. K. Wakefield in a laundry and dry cleaning company. Throughout this partnership association, she retained her position as a clerk in the market and did not participate in the operation of the partnership business. Thereafter, she permitted the automobile in question to be used for partnership purposes; and on December 23, 1938, a delivery man employed by the laundry company, while using the car for the purpose of picking up clothing to be dry cleaned, collided with Mrs. Blankenship, causing injuries to her, for which she brought suit on December 28, 1938, against the partners, Hester and Wakefield, and the driver of the car. Mrs. Blankenship's husband also brought...