Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Noel, No. 1093.
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
| Citation | 211 F. Supp. 216 |
| Docket Number | No. 1093. |
| Parties | FARMERS MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Billy NOEL, E. Rock Louden, Administrator of the Estate of Louis Marian Morris, Otto J. Moser, Rex Allen Young, Allen Young, and Geraldine Young, Norman Crouse, Ronald Crouse, Norman Crouse, Sr., and Edna Crouse, Carolyn Martin, Viola Martin, Mary Ann Ramsey, William Ramsey and Doris Ramsey, Peggy Kreek, John Kreek and Sadie Kreek, and Kenneth Kelly, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 09 August 1962 |
211 F. Supp. 216
FARMERS MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
Billy NOEL, E. Rock Louden, Administrator of the Estate of Louis Marian Morris, Otto J. Moser, Rex Allen Young, Allen Young, and Geraldine Young, Norman Crouse, Ronald Crouse, Norman Crouse, Sr., and Edna Crouse, Carolyn Martin, Viola Martin, Mary Ann Ramsey, William Ramsey and Doris Ramsey, Peggy Kreek, John Kreek and Sadie Kreek, and Kenneth Kelly, Defendants.
No. 1093.
United States District Court W. D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division.
August 9, 1962.
Ewing & Beavers, Maryville, Mo., Popham, Thompson, Popham, Trusty & Conway, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Pettijohn & Eiser, Oregon, Mo., for defendant Noel.
Gene Thompson, Maryville, Mo., for defendants Crouse.
Shoemaker & Reital, St. Joseph, Mo., for defendants Young.
Dale, Potter & Flynn, St. Joseph, Mo., for defendants Ramsey.
Waldo P. Goff and Merrill M. Steeb, St. Joseph, Mo., for defendant Moser.
Louis V. Stigall, St. Joseph, Mo., guardian ad Litem for minor defendants.
DUNCAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a resident and citizen of the State of Wisconsin, instituted this suit against the defendants, all residents of the State of Missouri, under the provisions of § 2201 Title 28 U.S.C.A. to determine its liability under a policy of liability insurance written by it, insuring the defendant Billy Noel, against loss or damage growing out of the use of certain motor vehicles.
The policy was in full force and effect at all times material to the issues in this case, and provided among other things:
"Coverages A and B—Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability.
To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of:
"Coverage A—Bodily injury, sickness or disease,
including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile;
"Coverage B—Injury to or destruction of property,
including the loss of use thereof, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile."
"Insured" is defined under the policy as:
"(a) With respect to the insurance for bodily injury liability and for property damage liability the unqualified word `insured' includes the named insured and, if the named insured is an individual, his spouse if a resident of the same household and also includes any person while using the automobile and any person or organization legally responsible for the use thereof, provided the actual use of the automobile is by the named insured or such spouse or with the permission of either." Emphasis supplied.
There is no dispute as to any substantial fact in this case, with the possible exception of the identity of the person who was driving the car at the time of the happening of the event out of which this litigation arose.
Defendant, Billy Noel, was a farmer living several miles from Mound City, Missouri. One Louis Marian Morris, who lived about one and one-half miles from Noel, was employed by the defendant Noel as a farmhand.
Noel was the owner of a 1950 Oldsmobile upon which the policy of insurance was issued. On Monday morning, October 10, 1960, Noel gave defendant Morris the automobile in question and told him that "he could take the car and drive it to and from work and that was all". On Thursday following, the weather was unsuitable for work and Noel told Morris to return to his home and he would call him when it would be possible to work.
The weather continued to be inclement Friday and Morris did not receive a call from Noel. There is no evidence that Noel renewed his restriction that Morris was to "drive the car to and from work and that was all".
The evidence revealed that sometime between Monday and Friday, Noel directed Morris to drive the car into Oregon, Missouri, so that Noel might use it to go to a sale. On this occasion, Morris returned home in a truck which had been driven into Oregon by Noel. With the exception of driving the car "to and from work", there is no suggestion or claim that Morris had ever driven the car on any other occasion.
Defendants raise the contention that these instructions were given to Morris but once, that is, on Monday morning, and that on Thursday morning, the last
On Friday, October 14, 1960, Morris drove the automobile into Oregon, Missouri, where he apparently indulged in some drinking. He thereafter came into association with the defendants Moser and Kelly.
At approximately 10:30 that evening, while the Noel car was being operated on a country road several miles from Oregon, and in an opposite direction from either the home of Noel or Morris, it came into collision with an automobile owned by the defendant Geraldine Young and being operated by defendant Rex Allen Young. The collision resulted in the death of Morris, and in injury to the occupants of the other car, all of whom are defendants in this case. No actions for damages have been brought by any of the parties.
All of the parties made, or threatened to make claim against the defendants Noel, Moser and Morris. The plaintiff denied liability both to its insured Noel and to Morris and Moser, and instituted this suit, on the ground that the motor vehicle was not being operated at the time of the collision with the permission of the named insured or of his spouse, and therefore, was not covered under the provisions of the policy.
It is the contention of the defendants Moser and Morris' administrator, that it is the duty of plaintiff, under the terms of the policy, to defend them against any action that might be brought against them by any of the other defendants, and to pay any judgment that might be rendered against them. They contend that under the law of Missouri, the operator of the vehicle had the permission of the named insured.
Under the omnibus clause in cases dealing with employer-employee relationship, three different rules have emerged. These views were stated in the case of McKee v. Travelers Ins. Co., Mo.App., 315 S.W.2d 852, 855:
"The first view, claimed by appellants to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ragatz, No. 19964
...permission conferred or contemplated at the time permission was given in the first instance. See Farmers Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Noel, 211 F.Supp. 216 (W.D.Mo.1962); Mt. Beacon Ins. Co. v. Williams, 296 F.Supp. 1094 (D.C.Md.1969); Couch on Insurance § 45.475, at ¶25 Couch advances the follow......
-
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Hunt, No. 10566
...followed the minor deviation rule. Speidel v. Kellum, 340 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.App.1960); Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Noel, 211 F.Supp. 216 Under the minor deviation rule it is said "if the use made by the bailee is not a gross violation of the terms of the bailment, even though it......
-
Allstate Insurance Company v. Philip Leasing Company, Civ. No. 842.
...Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Beverforden, 8 Cir., 93 F.2d 166 (1937) and Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Noel, D.C.Mo., 211 F.Supp. 216 The asserted claim for relief will be denied and the motion to dismiss will be granted with leave to the parties herein to assert any claim ......
-
Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chitwood, No. 11741
...the minor deviation rule. Truck Ins. Exchange v. Hunt, 590 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Mo.App.1979); Farmers Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Noel, 211 F.Supp. 216, 219(1) (W.D.Mo.1962). 1 "In applying this rule, the courts must determine in each instance-taking into account the extent of deviation in ac......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ragatz, No. 19964
...permission conferred or contemplated at the time permission was given in the first instance. See Farmers Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Noel, 211 F.Supp. 216 (W.D.Mo.1962); Mt. Beacon Ins. Co. v. Williams, 296 F.Supp. 1094 (D.C.Md.1969); Couch on Insurance § 45.475, at ¶25 Couch advances the follow......
-
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Hunt, No. 10566
...followed the minor deviation rule. Speidel v. Kellum, 340 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.App.1960); Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Noel, 211 F.Supp. 216 Under the minor deviation rule it is said "if the use made by the bailee is not a gross violation of the terms of the bailment, even though it......
-
Allstate Insurance Company v. Philip Leasing Company, Civ. No. 842.
...Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Beverforden, 8 Cir., 93 F.2d 166 (1937) and Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Noel, D.C.Mo., 211 F.Supp. 216 The asserted claim for relief will be denied and the motion to dismiss will be granted with leave to the parties herein to assert any claim ......
-
Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chitwood, No. 11741
...the minor deviation rule. Truck Ins. Exchange v. Hunt, 590 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Mo.App.1979); Farmers Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Noel, 211 F.Supp. 216, 219(1) (W.D.Mo.1962). 1 "In applying this rule, the courts must determine in each instance-taking into account the extent of deviation in ac......