Erickson v. Genisot, 61.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 61.,61. |
| Citation | 33 N.W.2d 803,322 Mich. 303 |
| Parties | ERICKSON v. GENISOT et al. (MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., Garnishee). |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Gogebic County; Thomas J. Landers, judge.
Action by E. William Erickson, special administrator of the estate of Raymond Chipperi, deceased, against Fred Genisot and others, principal defendants, wherein the Maryland Casualty Company, a foreign corporation, was garnisheed for death of decedent in an automobile collision. From the judgment, the garnishee defendant appeals.
Reversed without a new trial.
Before the Entire Bench.
S. W. Patek, of Ironwood, for garnishee, defendant, appellant.
Bernard E. Larson, of Ironwood, for plaintiff and appellee.
Plaintiff had judgment against the principal defendants for damages on account of the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from collision with a Plymouth automobile owned by defendant Webb and operated by defendant Genisot. This is an appeal by the garnishee defendant, Maryland Casualty Company, from judgment for plaintiff in garnishment proceedings brought on an insurance policy covering an International Truck owned and used in his business by defendant Genisot. Plaintiff bases his claim against the garnishee defendant upon the following provision in its insurance policy:
* * *'
The question presented is whether the insured International Truck was withdrawn from normal use because of breakdown so that the Plymouth automobile was, on that account, being used as a substitute for the truck and was, therefore, covered by the policy when the accident occurred.
Despite inconsistencies in the testimony, it satisfactorily appears from undisputed testomony that the truck was ten years old, rapidly deteriorating, in poor running order, at times not running at all, and, at the time the policy was written and during the period from that time until the date of the accident, was, for those reasons, not as freely and extensively used as theretofore; but it still was being used, as the only motor vehicle Genisot owned, in and about his business at the time of the accident. The normal use of the truck during that period included hauling mail, under government contract held by Genisot, twice a day from the post office to the depot in the city of Hurley, Wisconsin, where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fullilove v. U.S. Cas. Co. of N. Y.
...as that term is used in the policy. The court of appeal recognized that its ruling is inconsistent with the cases of Erickson v. Genisot, 322 Mich. 303, 33 N.W.2d 803, and Service Mutual Insurance Company v. Chambers, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W.2d 949, which hold that withdrawal must be from All......
-
Nelson v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.
...other reason stated in the substitution provisions. Iowa Mutual Insurance Company v. Addy, 132 Colo. 202, 286 P.2d 622; Erickson v. Genisot, 322 Mich. 303, 33 N.W.2d 803; Lewis v. Bradley, 7 Wis.2d 586, 97 N.W.2d 408; Harte v. Peerless Insurance Company, 123 Vt. 120, 183 A.2d 223; Grundeen ......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Osborne
...of both vehicles being driven at the same time ." (Emphases added.)¶ 34 In another case we find persuasive, Erickson v. Genisot , 322 Mich. 303, 33 N.W.2d 803, 803 (1948), an insured truck was 10 years old and "in poor running order," sometimes not running at all. Nonetheless, the truck was......
-
Lewis v. Bradley
...use did not qualify it as a substitute automobile or constitute a breakdown of the specified car in the policy; Erickson v. Genisot, 1948, 322 Mich. 303, 33 N.W.2d 803. Such autos are not withdrawn from normal use for the reasons stated in the policy. However, in Allstate Insurance Co. v. R......