Ford Motor Credit Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 4916

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
Writing for the CourtDOMENGEAUX
Citation309 So.2d 914
PartiesFORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
Decision Date19 March 1975
Docket NumberNo. 4916

Page 914

309 So.2d 914
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant
and Appellant.
No. 4916.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
March 19, 1975.
Rehearing Denied April 15, 1975.

Gist, Methvin & Trimble by David Hughes, Alexandria, for defendant-third party plaintiff-appellant.

Gravel, Roy & Burnes, Alexandria.

Stephen E. Everett, Alexandria, for defendants-third party plaintiffs-appellees.

Polk, Foote, Randolph, Percy & Ledbetter by William P. Polk, Alexandria, for plaintiff-third party defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGE , DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee, Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford), financed a 1973 Ford Maverick automobile owned by Durwood W. Carraway, and secured a chattel mortgage thereon which was duly recorded as prescribed by law. Defendant-appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), issued a policy of collision insurance to Carraway covering the Maverick and containing a loss payable clause in favor of Ford. A collision occurred and the Maverick was declared a total loss. At the time of the accident the gross balance due on Carraway's chattel mortgage note was $2,710 .86. Ford claimed its net balance from State Farm as loss payee under the aforementioned collision policy. State Farm refused to pay and Ford sued. Defendant answered, denying liability essentially on the basis that plaintiff by its actions destroyed the insurer's rights of subrogation. State Farm filed a third party action against Durwood Carraway and his minor son, Wayne, the driver of the Maverick at the time of the accident. The Carraways answered the third party action and additionally impleaded Ford as a third party defendant.

Judgment was rendered in the trial court in favor of Ford and against State Farm in the amount of $2,100.00. The judgment also rejected State Farm's demands against

Page 915

Carraway, and Carraway's demands against Ford.

State Farm has appealed.

A stipulation of facts was entered into by all parties on the morning of the trial as follows:

'1.

That effective May 21, 1973, for a policy period of May 21, 1973, to November 21, 1973, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company issued its policy number 1105 611 E21 18 to Durwood W. Carraway covering the 1972 Ford Maverick automobile involved in this matter. That among other coverages the above mentioned policy included $100 deductible collision insurance with Ford Motor Credit Corporation (sic) as the loss payee.

2.

That the premiums on the above mentioned policy were to be paid on a monthly basis. That the initial payment was the only payment made and the policy of insurance was correctly and effectively cancelled as of June 17, 1973.

3.

That Ford Motor Credit Company was notified of this cancellation on July 5, 1973, but was given an additional 13 days coverage from that date. Therefore, as to the loss payee, Ford Motor Credit Company, the policy of insurance was effective through July 18, 1973 .

4.

That on July 13, 1973, the insured vehicle was involved in a collision in Tulsa, Oklahoma, while being operated by Wayne R. Carraway, the minor son of Durwood Carraway. That a copy of the 'official police traffic collision report' prepared by representatives of the Tulsa Police Department is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. That as may be seen by reference to the above mentioned report, the accident occurred when Wayne R. Carraway collided with the rear of a vehicle being operated by Kenneth...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • COTTON BROS. BAKING v. Industrial Risk Insurers, Civ. A. No. 83-0150-A
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • July 31, 1989
    ...simply have acted on the rights so reserved. 10 Plaintiff has cited Ford Motor Credit Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 309 So.2d 914 (La.App.3d Cir.1975) and Powers v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 216 S.C. 309, 57 S.E.2d 638 (1950) as authority for the contention that subro......
  • Sexton v. Continental Cas. Co., No. 74651
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 10, 1991
    ...rights or estop the insurer from asserting those rights. Ford Motor Credit Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 309 So.2d 914, 917 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1975). See also National Mutual Insurance Company v. Fincher, 428 N.E.2d 1386, 1389-1390 (Ind.App.1981). As explained in ......
2 cases
  • COTTON BROS. BAKING v. Industrial Risk Insurers, Civ. A. No. 83-0150-A
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • July 31, 1989
    ...simply have acted on the rights so reserved. 10 Plaintiff has cited Ford Motor Credit Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 309 So.2d 914 (La.App.3d Cir.1975) and Powers v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 216 S.C. 309, 57 S.E.2d 638 (1950) as authority for the contention that subro......
  • Sexton v. Continental Cas. Co., No. 74651
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 10, 1991
    ...rights or estop the insurer from asserting those rights. Ford Motor Credit Company v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 309 So.2d 914, 917 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1975). See also National Mutual Insurance Company v. Fincher, 428 N.E.2d 1386, 1389-1390 (Ind.App.1981). As explained in ......

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