Employers Cas. Co. v. Azar
| Decision Date | 06 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 70--339,23603,s. 70--339 |
| Citation | 479 P.2d 979,28 Colo.App. 566 |
| Parties | EMPLOYERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. William G. AZAR, Defendant in Error. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Wormwood, Wolvington, Renner & Dosh, Winston W. Wolvington, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duane O. Littell, Ronald C. Hill, Denver, for defendant in error.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
William G. Azar wounded his hunting companion, John E. Filer, while the two were hunting rabbits along a public highway. The accident occurred in an automobile operated by Azar. Immediately before the accident, Azar was driving along the highway when two rabbits were seen and Azar stopped the automobile. Azar prepared to fire a shotgun through the car window, but before firing, he noticed a car approaching from the opposite direction. He then brought the shotgun back into the car and it accidentally discharged, injuring Filer.
At the time of this accident, Azar was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by Employers Casualty Company and under a homeowner's policy issued by Aetna Insurance Company. The question on this appeal is which of the two insurance companies is obligated to indemnify Azar against his liability arising out of this accident. 1
After suit was commenced by Filer against Azar, Aetna undertook Azar's defense and on his behalf filed a third party complaint against Employers. Before trial, Aetna, with the consent of Employers, paid $8,000 in compromise of Filer's claim and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The companies then stipulated that the remaining issues in the case would be tried as in a declaratory judgment action with Both Aetna and Employers as parties. It was further stipulated that Azar was an insured under both policies and that the sole question to be determined by the court was whether the accident and injuries referred to in the complaint arose out of the use of the automobile. It was further stipulated that under no circumstances could there be a finding that both companies were liable or that neither company was liable. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the case was submitted on the basis of the policies and depositions of Azar and Filer. On such basis, the court concluded that the accident and injuries resulting therefrom arose out of the use of the automobile and entered judgment against Employers.
The trial court's decision is in conflict with the holding of our Supreme Court in Mason v. Celina Mutual Insurance Co., 161 Colo. 442, 423 P.2d 24. Mason is sufficiently similar in factual situation to be controlling here. There, one Mason who had recently been a passenger in a car and who was sitting in the parked car, accidentally shot another while toying with a pistol. When suit was commenced against Mason, he asserted coverage under the automobile owner's insurance policy. The court, in rejecting Mason's claim, held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willard v. Kelley, 69347
...the vehicle. Tomlin v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Liab. Ins. Co., 95 Wis.2d 215, 290 N.W.2d 285, 290 (1980); Employers Casualty Co. v. Azar, 28 Colo.App. 566, 479 P.2d 979, 980 (1970). In the absence of effects caused by the movement of a vehicle, a vehicle is inherently no different than any ......
-
American Modern Home Ins. Co. v. Rocha, 2
...Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Partridge, 10 Cal.3d 94, 109 Cal.Rptr. 811, 514 P.2d 123 (1973); Employers Casualty Company v. Azar, 28 Colo.App. 566, 479 P.2d 979 (1970), aff'd 178 Colo. 58, 495 P.2d 554 (1972); National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. Bruecks, 179 Neb......
-
Drum v. Dairyland Ins. Co.
...as 'arising out of the . . . use of the owned automobile,' as contemplated by the liability insurance contract.' Employers Casualty Co. v. Azar, 28 Colo.App. 566, 479 P.2d 979, Aff'd, 178 Colo. 58, 495 P.2d 554. In that opinion we further limited the definition of 'use,' as contemplated by ......
-
United Fire & Cas. Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa v. Day
...Co., 161 Colo. 442, 423 P.2d 24 (1967), and Azar v. Employers Casualty Co., 178 Colo. 58, 495 P.2d 554 (1972), aff'g, 28 Colo.App. 566, 479 P.2d 979 (1970), upon which United places great reliance, are inapposite. Those cases involved interpretations of exclusionary clauses of automobile li......
-
Chapter 3 - § 3.11 • WHEN DOES AN ACCIDENT OR INJURY ARISE OUT OF THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, OR USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE?
...Co., 495 P.2d 554 (Colo. 1972), the court granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Employers Casualty Co. v. Azar, 479 P.2d 979 (Colo. App. 1971). The court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment that a gunshot injury that occurred within a parked vehicle that was bei......