Davis v. Auto. Ass'n of N.J.

Decision Date19 April 1940
Docket NumberNo. 401.,401.
PartiesDAVIS v. AUTOMOBILE ASS'N OF NEW JERSEY.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In automobile liability insurance, the interest of the potentially damaged person is involved, and his status, in certain respects, is a matter of public policy.

2. In automobile liability insurance, it is the right of the court to construe the language of the contract so as to seek out the purpose of the parties, and where there is ambiguity in the contract the construction should go most strongly against the writer, and the contract should be construed liberally in favor of the insured.

Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Essex County.

Action by George Davis against the Automobile Association of New Jersey, a corporation, for payment of attorney's fees to plaintiff's attorney pursuant to membership agreement between plaintiff and defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for $200, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued January term, 1940, before TRENCHARD, CASE, and HEHER, JJ.

Benjamin Gershenson, of Elizabeth (Harry J. Weiner, of Elizabeth, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Green & Green, of Newark (David Green, of Newark, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

TRENCHARD, Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant below from a judgment of the district court rendered by the judge, sitting without a jury, in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant, in the sum of $200.

The agreed state of the case discloses the following pertinent matters of fact:

On March 16, 1939, George Davis, plaintiff-appellee (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") became a member of the Automobile Association of New Jersey, defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as "defendant"). Plaintiff paid his membership fee of $15, and a membership certificate was issued to him by defendant.

On about April 15, 1939, while such certificate was in full force and effect, plaintiff was involved in an accident in the Township of Union, Union County, New Jersey, while operating his automobile, as a result of which Ernest Hare, an employee of plaintiff, received injuries resulting in his death.

On the same day complaint was made against plaintiff in the police court of such township by the Sergeant of Police, charging that plaintiff operated his motor vehicle on Carrow Road, a public highway, in a reckless manner, so as to cause the death of Ernest Hare, and prayed that the plaintiff be apprehended and held to answer such complaint, and be dealt with as law and justice may require. Plaintiff was arrested and released in the custody of his present attorney until the following day, when bail was set by the Prosecutor of Union County at $1,000.

Plaintiff's attorney rendered certain services to plaintiff, more particularly set forth in bill of particulars. These services consisted of the following, among others:

Appearance at Police Court, obtaining statements of witnesses, appearance at Union County Prosecutor's office to have bail fixed, bond for which was supplied by defendant, trip to Union County jail to have plaintiff fingerprinted, trip to scene of accident to have photographs taken, further conferences with plaintiff and with the Prosecutor's office.

Plaintiff's attorney rendered a bill for such services and thereafter, upon refusal of defendant to pay same, this suit was brought.

The matter was submitted to the trial court on agreed state of facts and oral argument. The trial court found for the plaintiff and rendered judgment for $200, with interest.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Milligan
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 2, 1985
    ...changed. The State also contends that the mention of a manslaughter prosecution for reckless driving in Davis v. Automobile Assn. of N.J., 124 N.J.L. 364, 12 A.2d 387 (Sup.Ct.1940), a case which decided an issue of insurance coverage, is some evidence that prosecutions for manslaughter cont......
  • New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 23, 1943
    ...against the insurer. See Iden v. Huber, 259 Mich. 3, 242 N.W. 818; Flanagan v. Harder, 270 Mich. 288, 258 N.W. 633; Davis v. Automobile Ass'n, 124 N.J.L. 364, 12 A.2d 387. Ordinarily, a beneficiary of such an insurance contract may maintain an action thereon, though not named therein, when ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT