Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Central Produce Co.
| Decision Date | 10 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 56.,56. |
| Citation | 42 F. Supp. 31 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL STANDARD INS. CO. v. CENTRAL PRODUCE CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Cate & Cate, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Insurance Company.
C. C. Warden and Leighton Ewell, both of Manchester, Tenn., and E. D. Jackson, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Produce Company.
1. The Court finds as a fact that on June 6, 1939, the plaintiff, the Commercial Standard Insurance Company issued its automobile liability policy number A L 499,894 to the defendant, Central Produce Company, protecting it against liability for bodily injuries received by any one person in the amount of five thousand dollars for each person, with a limit of ten thousand dollars for each accident, and for property damage liability of five thousand dollars for each accident; that the automobiles expressly covered under the terms and conditions of the policy are set out in the schedule attached thereto; that the policy was issued through its agents, Bennett & Corley, of Nashville, Tennessee, and written by Mr. Maurice R. Pinson, an insurance agent of Nashville, Tennessee. That on July 29, 1939, an International Tractor, motor number 11,718, owned by defendant, Central Produce Company was involved in an accident, as the result of which Clebert Lewis, A. T. Lewis, Hilary Cooper and Mrs. D. T. Lewis were killed, and Marvin Lewis injured, the automobile in question being driven by Clebert Lewis; that administrations have been entered upon the estates of all those who are deceased, and these various parties have brought suit against the defendant, Central Produce Company, seeking to recover damages arising out of the accident.
The Court finds that attached to the International Tractor was a Frehauf trailer, number 50,913, and the Court further finds that this trailer is expressly named in the schedule attached to the policy in question; however, the International tractor number 11,718 is not expressly set out in said schedule.
The Court finds that this tractor in question was purchased by the Central Produce Company about ten months prior to the accident, and that it had been included in a policy, along with the Frehauf trailer number H-48,112, issued by the plaintiff, Commercial Standard Insurance Company to the Central Produce Company in 1938, and that at the time the policy expired on June 6th, 1939, a new policy was written by the home office of the Commercial Standard Insurance Company and forwarded to the defendant, Central Produce Company, through the Nashville agents of the insurance company. However, this policy was not accepted by the Central Produce Company, and was not delivered to it, but was returned with the request that a new policy be issued, excluding the International tractor, number 11,718, and Frehauf trailer number H-48,112, and accordingly the policy in question was written and delivered to the defendant, Central Produce Company.
The Court further finds that at the time the renewal policy was first written to take effect June 6, 1939, that the International Tractor number 11,718 was at that time wrecked, and the defendant Central Produce Company was not operating it, and for that reason that it be excluded from the terms of the renewal policy.
The Court further finds that on or about the 20th day of July, 1939, or a few days before that time, Mr. Maurice Pinson made a visit to the offices of the Central Produce Company, and while there he saw a Chevrolet tractor which was covered by the terms of the policy in question, and it was undergoing repairs, and the question came up about the serviceability of the Chevrolet tractor; the mechanic at that time stated that he thought that the tractor could make one trip in its then condition, if it was handled carefully, and accordingly the tractor did leave the offices of the Produce Company on the 18th day of July, 1939, and made the trip to Chicago and returned on the following day, July 20th, and that during the discussion before the tractor left on the trip, that Mr. Strother, the general manager of the defendant, Central Produce Company, stated to Mr. Pinson that the Chevrolet tractor would have to be put out of service and that he was either going to trade it off for a new car, or have it overhauled, and that in either event that he would want to substitute the International tractor that was then being repaired for the Chevrolet tractor, presumably under the policy in question; however, the Court is unable to find from the facts that the policy was definitely mentioned, but presumes that the parties so intended by that conversation to imply a substitution under the terms of the policy. However, nothing definite was agreed upon between the parties at that time, and it was merely a statement of intention on the part of Strother. Subsequently, on or about July 26th, 1939, Mr. Pinson again visited the offices of the Central Produce Company, where he talked to Mr. Strother, and at that time the Chevrolet was back in the shop of the Central Produce Company, and was torn down, the hood was off and part of the cylinder head was off, and that Mr. Pinson kidded Mr. Strother at that time about always having to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaSalle Nat. Ins. Co. v. Popham
...E.g., Lynam v. Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp. (D.Del.) 218 F.Supp. 383, affirmed (3 Cir.) 331 F.2d 757; Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Central Produce Co., (M.D.Tenn.) 42 F.Supp. 31, affirmed sub nom. Central Produce Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. (6 Cir.) 122 F.2d 1021; Coleman v. Atl......
-
Dike v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
...E.g., Lynam v. Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp. (D.Del.) 218 F.Supp. 383, affirmed (3 Cir.) 331 F.2d 757; Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Central Produce Co. (M.D.Tenn.) 42 F.Supp. 31, affirmed sub nom. Central Produce Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. (6 Cir.) 122 F.2d 1021; Coleman v. Atla......
-
Bell v. West American Ins. Co.
...Ins. Co., 306 S.W.2d 836 (Ky.1957); Utilities Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 207 Okl. 574, 251 P.2d 175 (1952); Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Central Produce Co., 42 F.Supp. 31 (M.D.Tenn.1940), aff'd, 122 F.2d 1021 (6th Cir.1941). Thus, giving effect to the words "newly acquired," it is apparent tha......
-
Travelers Indemnity Company v. Harris, 60 C 344.
...which Federal District Courts have entertained declaratory judgment actions under similar circumstances. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Central Produce Company, D.C., 42 F.Supp. 31. Similarly there are many cases in which District Courts have retained jurisdiction even though actions had b......