Galemore Motor Co., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 August 1974
• Docket Number: No. 9245,9245
• Citation: 513 S.W.2d 161
• Parties: GALEMORE MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 161

513 S.W.2d 161

GALEMORE MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9245.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

Aug. 14, 1974.

Albert C. Lowes, Buerkle, Buerkle & Lowes, Jackson, for defendant-appellant.

Weber Gilmore, Sikeston, for plaintiff-respondent.

STONE, Judge.

In this 'Action on Account,' plaintiff Galemore Motors, Inc., initially sought judgment against defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) or, 'in the alternative,' against defendant Jerry Householder in the sum of $750 for the alleged rental of a 1969 Plymouth automobile for fifty days at $15 per day. Upon trial by jury, defendant State Farm elected to stand on its separate motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case. After defendant Householder's similar motion for a directed verdict at that stage of the case had been denied, he testified on his own behalf; but, at the close of all the evidence, plaintiff dismissed as to him. From the judgment for $750 thereafter entered upon a unamimous jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendant State Farm appeals.

This suit is an outgrowth of a collision 'on the highway coming through Jackson,' Missouri, on January 26, 1970, when a northbound pickup driven by Edwin Strack, a State Farm insured, made a lefthand turn in front of a southbound 1969 Plymouth automobile woned and being driven by Jack Ivie, a deputy sheriff of Mississippi County, resulting in extensive damage to the Ivie automobile. On the afternoon of January 29, 1970, Householder talked with Ivie in the sheriff's office at Charleston, Missouri, identified himself as representing State Farm, and in the course of subsequent conversation said that 'his insured had admitted fault and he would like to see that (Ivie) had a car to drive.' When Ivie responded that he had borrowed a 1969 Plymouth from Mr. L. E. Galemore, plaintiff's controlling officer and shareholder, for use 'until I could make some arrangements,' Householder inquired whether it was 'a good car' and 'satisfactory'; and, upon being assured by Ivie that it was, Householder proposed that they 'go out and see Mr. Galemore,' which they proceeded to do.

The principal issue of fact, i.e., as to whether Ivie or defendant State Farm then rented the 1969 Plymouth, is best reflected in the following testimonial excerpts. Ivie's account was that Householder 'asked (Galemore) how much he would charge for the car that I was using. Mr. Galemore told (Householder) he would have to have $15 a day . . .. Householder said that he could rent a car for $13 a day plus a cent or two mileage. L. E. (Galemore) told him that would probably run over ($15) a day as many miles as I drove, and I told them I didn't want to get in the conversation any more than possible . . . that they could make arrangements, anything they did was satisfactory with me, so Mr. Householder . . . said, 'well, you just go ahead and drive this car then and we will take care of it. '' To the specific query whether he had 'any agreement with Mr. Galemore or was the agreement between Mr. Galemore and Mr. Householder,' Ivie insisted that 'it was strictly between Mr. Galemore and Mr. Householder. I made that plain. I didn't want to rent the car myself. I wanted them to make the arrangements and make the deal, and whatever they did was all right with me.' L. E. Galemore's testimony to the same effect was that Householder 'said they were prepared to rent (Ivie) a car, and . . . we got down to the price on the car, and I told Mr. Householder I needed $15 a day. He said he could rent a Hertz for $13 plus mileage. I told him, 'he (Ivie) will drive four or five thousand miles during the time the car is being repaired and so it would really be cheaper, the $15,' so that is the figure we agreed on.' Galemore further testified that $15 per day was the fair and reasonable rental price for that automobile in Charleston.

Householder's version was that, after Ivie had introduced them, Galemore 'asked me what we would pay for renting a vehicle and I told him under our own policy for one of our own insureds . . . it is $8 a day and he said, well, he would have to have $15 a day, and I think I said something to the effect, 'Hell, you can rent Hertz rent-a-car for $13 a day.' . . . When Mr. Ivie asked me again, I told him to go ahead and rent a car and we will be responsible for your monetary loss.' To the following inquiry whether he had ever told Galemore that he would rent this or any other vehicle for Ivie, Householder responded with a blunt 'no.'

The damage to the Ivie automobile was so extensive, as indicated by the two repair estimates, i.e., instant plaintiff's estimate of $1,868 and Kersey's estimate of $1,767, that Householder deemed it prudent to solicit and obtain four competitive salvage bids for the damaged Ivie automobile before concluding on February 16, twenty-five days after the accident, that the Ivie automobile 'was repairable' and authorizing Kersey to order parts and proceed.

Defendant State Farm's counsel present five elaborate points with a diffuse agrument on each, which cumulatively, although perhaps not designed so to do, nevertheless would unnecessarily complicate a relatively uncomplicated case. Perhaps some of the chaff may be winnowed out of this heap in the course of careful consideration of defendant's first point that:

'State Farm's motion for directed verdict filed at the close of plaintiff's case should have been sustained because: (a) Plaintiff did not prove the normal elements of an action on account as alleged in its petition in paragraph 3 and as stated in paragraph (1)(b) and (c) of defendant's motion for directed verdict filed at the close of plaintiff's case. (b) Plaintiff did not prove that any act or omission allegedly accomplished by one Jerry Householder was accomplished for and on behalf of his employer and principal, State Farm, and especially the plaintiff did not prove that Jerry Householder had the authority, express or implied, to make any type of alleged rental agreement between the defendant and a third-party claimant as plaintiff was in this instance, as alleged in paragraph 3 of Count I of plaintiff's petition.'

Preliminarily, we agree with defendant State Farm's position (for which its counsel cites no supporting authority) that, since it elected to stand on its motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case, we may consider only the proceedings and evidence prior to that time in ruling the submissibility of the case against State Farm. Gibson v. Newhouse, 402 S.W.2d 324, 326--327(2) (Mo.1966); Murphy v. Deksnis, 476 S.W.2d 150, 152(5) (Mo.App.1972); Lathrop v. Rippee, 432 S.W.2d 227, 229(1) (Mo.1968).

As disclosed and elucidated in the argument section of its brief, State Farm's assertion of nonsubmissibility in the abovequoted first point rests upon the twin assertions (a) that plaintiff did not prove the elements of its pleaded cause of action and by its verdict-directing instruction 2 submitted its case on a different theory, and (b) that Householder's status as 'a duly authorized agent' of State Farm was 'an abandoned issue . . . because it wasn't instructed on' and 'alternatively' that plaintiff did not prove Householder had either express or implied authority to rent an automobile for use by a claimant such as Ivie.

Of (a). Defendant State Farm's counsel rest this argument on the fact that it was averred in plaintiff's petition that '(o)n or about the 29th day of January, 1970, the defendant, acting by and through its duly authorized agent and representative, Jerry Householder . . . did rent from the plaintiff' a certain automobile for $15 per day and that 'thereafter defendant did use plaintiff's automobile for a total of fifty days thus thereby becoming indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $750,' whereas plaintiff's verdict-directing instruction 2 required findings that 'First, at defendant's request plaintiff furnished to Jack F. Ivie a certain automobile between the 26th day of January, 1970 and March 17, 1970 and Second, plaintiff charged a total of $750 for such goods, and Third, plaintiff's charges were reasonable.' (All emphasis herein is ours.)

However, defendant was in no wise prejudiced by, and is in no position to complain about, the noted differences between the averments of plaintiff's petition and the issues as submitted by plaintiff's instruction 2. For meticulous examination of the transcript establishes that the above-quoted findings faithfully and precisely reflect factual issues presented and supported by the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses Ivie and L. E. Galemore, and that all of such testimony was received without a single objection by State Farm's counsel. In these circumstances, the petition is treated as having been amended to conform to the evidence. Rule 55.33(b) (formerly Rule 55.54); § 509.500; Harris v. Goggins, 374 S.W.2d 6, 12(4--6) (Mo banc 1963); Lock v. Bennartz, 470 S.W.2d 801, 802(1) (Mo.1971); Searcy v. Neal, 509 S.W.2d 755, 759--760(1, 2) (Mo.App.1974); Stoeppelman v. Hays-Fendler Const. Co., 437 S.W.2d 143, 150(16) (Mo.App.1968). ¹

Of (b). The primary argument under this bifurcation of the first point, to wit, that Householder's status as 'a duly authorized agent' of State Farm was 'an abandoned issue . . . because it wasn't instructed on,' is directed to the fact of agency, i.e., the existence of the relationship of principal and agent. However, the transcript on appeal clearly establishes that Householder's status as an adjuster for State Farm was admitted and confirmed by State Farm's counsel during his opening statement to the jury in the course of which he identified 'Jerry T. Householder' as 'our adjuster' and, having assured the jury there was 'no dispute' about the fact that State Farm's insured was at fault and therefore 'we owe (plaintiff) Mr....