Fruchtman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 39958
| Decision Date | 22 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39958,39958 |
| Citation | 142 N.W.2d 299,274 Minn. 54 |
| Parties | Robert FRUCHTMAN, Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In construing a 'household exclusion' provision in a liability policy, the trial court could properly find that an adult, emancipated son who had not lived at home for several years but was visiting his parents between assignments while in military service was not a member of their household, notwithstanding the fact he continued to use the family home as his permanent mailing address.
Palmer, Hood, Crassweller & McCarthy, Duluth, for appellant.
Roger Johnson, Minneapolis, for respondent.
The plaintiff is a policyholder of defendant liability carrier who seeks a declaratory judgment construing an insurance contract containing a so -called 'household exclusion.' The only issue is whether the trial court was correct in construing the following provision of the policy to hold the insurer liable:
'This policy does not apply * * *
'* * * to bodily injury to the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured.' 1
On November 26, 1958, plaintiff was driving an automobile insured by defendant in which his mother, Ann Fruchtman, was a passenger. Mrs. Fruchtman was injured when her son's vehicle collided with one operated by an Ernest Bundgaard. She brought an action to recover damages against Bundgaard, who in turn joined plaintiff as a third-party defendant for indemnity or contribution. Although plaintiff demanded that defendant assume the defense of the third-party action, it refused to do so, invoking the household exclusion clause. Thereupon, plaintiff retained counsel at his own expense. His mother's action resulted in a verdict against her, and plaintiff here seeks to recover $1,510 in attorney's fees which he incurred in defending the third-party claim for contribution.
Whether plaintiff's mother was a member of his family, residing in the same household, is essentially a fact question. 2 A recitation of the chronology of his activities is therefore appropriate.
It appears without dispute that plaintiff was born in the year 1931 and in 1942 moved with his parents into a home at 1340 Upton Avenue North in the city of Minneapolis where he resided while attending grade school, high school, and college. After graduating from the University of Minnesota in 1953, he continued his premedical and medical courses there, and in 1955 occupied an apartment in St. Paul while acting as a junior intern at Miller Hospital. He returned to the Upton Avenue address in the spring of 1956, and in June of that year moved to Milwaukee for his internship. Those studies occupied the period of one year and terminated in June 1957, by which time he had been commissioned in the Army. He twice visited his home briefly before departing in September for duty in Korea.
On or about November 14, 1958, plaintiff returned to his parents' home on leave while en route to reassignment in Chicago where he was to report early in December 1958. On November 18, 1958, while in Minneapolis staying with his parents at the Upton Avenue address, plaintiff purchased an automobile which he insured under a liability policy with the defendant.
The accident having occurred on November 26, plaintiff was delayed in his return to Chicago until December 28 out of concern for his mother's injuries. He remained in Chicago with the Army until he was discharged in July 1959, when he began his residency in a Milwaukee hospital. The following year he was married and has maintained a separate home since that time.
In support of its contention that on the date of the accident plaintiff's mother was a member of his family residing in the same household with plaintiff, defendant calls attention to the numerous occasions during all of this period when plaintiff referred to the Upton Avenue address as the place of his residence. It is undisputed that he kept the bulk of his belongings at that address; gave it as his residence in absentee voting; used it in his insurance application, in registering his car, and in securing a driver's license; designated the Upton Avenue address as his home in the accident report made to the state and to his insurer; and stated to the defendant following the accident that he considered it his domicile. In addition, defendant asserts that the court is compelled to find plaintiff a member of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Company
...206, 140 N.W. 2d 193 (R & A 3802); Giese v. Karstedt, 1966, 30 Wis.2d 630, 141 N.W.2d 886 (R & A 3897); Fruchtman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1966, 274 Minn. 54, 142 N.W.2d 299 (R & A 3905); Hardesty v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 1966, 361 F.2d 176 (R & A 3955). The lat......
-
Long v. Coates
...to cause harm, thereby is irrelevant. We affirm. GREEN and SHIELDS, JJ., concur. 1 State Farm relies on Fruchtman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 274 Minn. 54, 142 N.W.2d 299 (1966), which held a son who was visiting his parents between military assignments was not a resident of their ho......
-
Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 40123
...Minn. 482, 184 N.W. 189; Note, 76 A.L.R.2d 996; Klemmer v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 188 Minn. 209, 246 N.W. 896; Fruchtman v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 274 Minn. 54, 142 N.W.2d 299; Berke Moore Co., Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co., 345 Mass. 66, 185 N.E.2d 637; Southwestern Ind. Co. v. Nati......
-
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver
...reach that conclusion. The authorities on which Farmers relies do not persuade us to a contrary result. Fruchtman v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 274 Minn. 54, 142 N.W.2d 299 (1966) held that an adult emancipated son who had not lived at home for several years but was visiting his parents......