Gabel v. Bird
| Decision Date | 11 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 52528,52528,1 |
| Citation | 422 S.W.2d 341 |
| Parties | Wesley GABEL and Leora Gabel, Appellants, v. Floyd Lester BIRD, Jr., Defendant, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Garnishee-Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Mogab & Hughes, by Richard L. Hughes, St. Louis, for appellants.
James A. Cole, Jenny & Cole, Union, for respondent.
HENRY J. WESTHUES, Special Commissioner.
This is a garnishment proceeding instituted by Wesley Gabel and his wife Leora to recover $20,000 from the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. A trial was had in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Missouri. A jury was waived and the court found the issues in favor of the garnishee. A motion for a new trial was denied and plaintiffs appealed.
The facts culminating in the garnishment proceeding were as follows.
On February 21, 1964, Wesley Gabel gave Floyd Bird, Jr., permission to use Gabel's car for the purpose of taking Gabel's daughter Judith, aged 17, to Bird's home in Sullivan. On the return trip, while Bird was driving on Interstate 44, the car overturned, causing Judith's death. Wesley Gabel and his wife filed suit against Bird and obtained a judgment for $20,000. Judith was an unemancipated child residing with her parents.
It was admitted that State Farm Mutual was notified by both Gabel and Bird of the suit. State Farm Mutual refused to defend Bird on the theory that the policy of insurance issued to Wesley Gabel did not cover Judith Gabel because she was an insured under the policy issued to Wesley Gabel.
The policy of insurance was introduced in evidence and was reproduced in plaintiffs' brief. We shall set forth the clauses deemed material by plaintiffs, together with plaintiffs' statement of the issues. They are as follows:
'On June 7, 1966, a trial was held on the garnishment proceeding. The issue as reflected in the pleadings was whether as a matter of law, garnishee's insurance policy (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Garnishee's Exhibit A), (a) provides liability coverage to Floyd Bird, Jr., and/or (b) excludes Judith Gabel from policy benefits. The policy clauses which are the crux of this dispute read as follows:
'INSURING AGREEMENT I--THE OWNED AUTOMOBILE
'COVERAGES A and B--
(A) Bodily Injury Liability and
(B) Property Damage Liability.
'(1) To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of (A) bodily injury sustained by other persons, * * *.
'DEFINITIONS--INSURING AGREEMENTS I AND II
'Insured--under coverages A, B, C and M the unqualified word 'insured' includes
'(1) the named insured, and
'(2) if the named insured is a person or persons, also includes his or their spouse(s), if a resident of the same household, and
'(3) if residents of the same household, the relatives of the first person named in the declarations, or of his spouse, and
'(4) any other person while using the owned automobile, provided the operation and the actual use of such automobile are with the permission of the named insured or such spouse and are within the scope of such permission * * *.
'EXCLUSIONS--INSURING AGREEMENTS I AND II
'This insurance does not apply under: * * * (i) coverage A, to bodily injury to the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured; * * *.
'POLICY CONDITIONS--APPLICABLE TO ALL COVERAGES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
Under 'Points and Authorities' plaintiffs state that 'The Court erred in failing to find that as a matter of law, Judith Gabel was not excluded from benefits under Respondent's insurance policy and particularly the 'Exclusions--Insuring Agreements I and II' of Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5 because as a matter of (a) grammar, (b) syntax, (c) law, the definition of 'insured' contained in the paragraphs entitled 'Definitions--Insuring Agreements I and II' does not apply to the term 'insured' when used in the 'Exclusions--Insuring Agreements I and II' clause.'
Plaintiffs in their brief contend that the provisions of the policy are ambiguous and that policies of insurance must be liberally construed in favor of the insured. That is the correct rule when ambiguous clauses are contained in the policy. However, courts do not rewrite insurance contracts and may not create an ambiguity where none is present. Lynch v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co., Mo.App., 278 S.W.2d 32, l.c. 34(3, 4).
We are unable to discover any ambiguity in the provisions of the policy that are applicable to the parties in this case. As we understand the terms of the policy, State Farm Mutual by 'Insuring Agreement I' contracted to pay for the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury sustained by other persons.
The next clause, 'Definitions--Insuring Agreements I and II,' defines the word insured to include the insured in this case, Wesley Gabel, his wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macalco, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co.
...policy. State ex rel. Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Shain, 344 Mo. 623, 627, 127 S.W.2d 675, 676-677(2) (banc 1939); Gabel v. Bird, 422 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Mo.1967); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ward, 340 S.W.2d 635, 639(3) (Mo.1960); Jordan v. United Equitable Life Ins. Co., supra, 4......
-
Fuchs v. Cheeley, 41824
...applying Missouri law, held that Missouri had adopted Pearson v. Johnson, Supra, and quoted at length from it. See, also, Gabel v. Bird (Mo.), 422 S.W.2d 341. It thus is clear under the foregoing cases that no matter under which insured recovery is sought, recovery by co-resident members of......
-
Tickner v. Union Ins. Co.
...that there is no coverage for an omnibus insured for injury to the named insured or a resident member of the named insured's household. 6 The Gabel case, in fact, rules squarely on the point presented here, for in the Gabel case coverage was sought for a permittee for injury to a member of ......
-
Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brooks
...The addition of the severability of interests clause created the conflict we are called upon to resolve. Compare Gabel v. Bird, 422 S.W.2d 341 (Mo.1967) 2 and Tickner v. Union Insurance Co., 425 S.W.2d 483 (Mo.App.1968) 3 with Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 599 S.W.......