General Cas. Co. of Wis. v. Hines
Decision Date | 06 February 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 52778,52778 |
Citation | 261 Iowa 738,156 N.W.2d 118 |
Parties | GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, Appellant, v. Donald R. HINES, James E. Hines, John Davis, Linda Davis, and Jessie B. Ellison, Appellants. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Mosier, Mosier, Thomas, Beatty & Dutton, Waterloo, for appellant.
Kildee, Keith, Gallagher, Lybbert & Martin, Waterloo, for appellee Jessie B. Ellison.
K. L. Kober, Waterloo, for appellees Donald R. Hines and James E. Hines.
Evans & Hinton, Waterloo, for appellees John Davis and Linda Davis.
By petition for declaratory judgment plaintiff-insurer sought to avoid liability with regard to a particular automobile-pedestrian accident. Defendants resisted.
Trial court held adverse to plaintiff and it appeals. We affirm.
Defendant James E. Hines, operating an automobile owned by John and Linda Davis, struck and injured defendant-pedestrian Jessie B. Ellison. At time of the accident defendant Donald R. Hines, father of James, held a policy of insurance issued by plaintiff.
Among other things the omnibus clause of this policy provided liability coverage with respect to a non-owned automobile operated by a relative of the named insured. Without question James was such a relative.
Specifically, coverage provided is as follows:
Factually, the record discloses, without dispute, John Davis took the 1956 Mercury convertible here concerned to the Hines residence in Waterloo for the express purpose of there displaying it for sale and attracting possible buyers. The keys were left with the car. From this point on the evidence is in conflict.
The basic issues presented on this appeal are, (1) whether the accident-involved-vehicle, at time here concerned, was being operated with permission or reasonably believed permissive use of the owner, and (2) whether it was furnished for regular use by either the named insured or any relative.
I. Extent of coverage of an insurance policy is a proper subject for a declaratory judgment action. Rules 261--269, R.C.P.; Merchants and Farmers State Bank, etc. v. Rosdail, 257 Iowa 1238, 1243--1244, 131 N.W.2d 786, 136 N.W.2d 286; Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v. O'Connor-Regenwether Post No. 3633, V.F.W., 247 Iowa 168, 171--172, 73 N.W.2d 12; and 22 Am.Jur.2d, Declaratory Judgments, section 41, page 896. See also Katz Investment Co. v. Lynch, 242 Iowa 640, 647--648, 47 N.W.2d 800.
It is evident a justiciable controversy was here presented.
II. Regardless of the fact it brought the action for declaratory relief, and in so doing made certain affirmative allegations, plaintiff contends the burden was upon defendants to prove coverage under the policy.
The petition filed by it alleges, inter alia, '* * * the policy was violated and not in effect at the time of said accident * * *.'
Rule 344(f)(5), R.C.P. provides: 'Ordinarily the burden of proof follows the pleading; that is, he who pleads and relies upon the affirmative of an issue must carry the burden of proving it.'
More specifically, 2 Anderson, Actions for Declaratory Judgments, Second Ed., section 375, pages 881--883, states: 'What is meant by the 'burden of proof' is reflected by the Wigmorean characteristic expression of, 'the risk of non persuasion' and the concomitant obligation to go forward with the proof, when it might result in a failure to convince the trier of facts.
'To ascertain on which party the burden of proof lies the pleadings should be consulted, and the question is which of the parties would suffer an adverse judgment if no evidence was received and when that matter is determined, that party has the burden of proof.'
See also Sanborn v. Maryland Cas. Co., 255 Iowa 1319, 1321, 125 N.W.2d 758; Pacific Ins. Co., etc. v. Christianson, 253 Iowa 241, 243, 111 N.W.2d 679; Fortgang Brothers, Inc. v. Cowles, 249 Iowa 73, 76, 85 N.W.2d 916; 26 C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments § 148, page 351; 22 Am.Jur.2d, Declaratory Judgments, sections 97--98, pages 963--966; and Annos. 23 A.L.R.2d 1243.
Plaintiff cites and leans rather heavily on Western Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 258 Iowa 460, 137 N.W.2d 918. We do not find it applicable. That case involved the cooperation clause of an insurance policy. The real issue was not whether the insured had or had not cooperated with the company. Rather, the question presented was whether failure on the part of insured to cooperate was prejudicial to the insurer. Actually burden of proof, as presented in the case at bar, was not there involved.
Other cases cited by plaintiff on this issue are likewise deemed inapplicable.
Authorities on the subject at hand have admittedly adopted views which are in varying degrees of conflict. However, under the factual situation peculiar to the case now before us, we find no compelling cause to disagree with the principles expressed by Anderson, supra.
III. In any event plaintiff is hardly in a position to here effectively assert an issue as to burden of proof.
This case was tried to the court. On this subject generally see Wright v. Thompson, 254 Iowa 342, 353, 117 N.W.2d 520.
And plaintiff, without challenge, objection or resistance at any time or in any manner, prior to trial proceeded with presentation of evidence as is usual on the part of one having the burden of proof.
Dealing with a similar situation the court said in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sweeney, 3 Cir., 216 F.2d 209, 211: 'This question of what happens in a declaratory judgment suit when the plaintiff has undertaken the ordinary burden which a plaintiff has in bringing an action has been dealt with admirably in the Ninth Circuit in Pacific Portland Cement Co. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 9 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 541. Here was a case in which the plaintiff in a declaratory judgment suit had gone ahead and offered its testimony in full. Under these circumstances the Court said: 178 F.2d at page 547 See also Bauer v. Clark, 7 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 307, 401. The New Hampshire rule announced in Greenough supra, (Travelers Ins. Co. v. Greenough, 88 N.H. 391, 190 A. 129, 109 A.L.R. 1096) has likewise been qualified. In Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Lougee, 1938, 89 N.H. 222, 196 A. 267, 269, the court said: 'It (Plaintiff) voluntarily assumed the ordinary position of a plaintiff in opening the case and accepted the order for its closing. It thereby assumed the burden of proving it had not insured the defendant instead of requiring that action be taken in assertion of the claim of insurance. * * * It would be unfairly inconsistent for the plaintiff to take the advantages of the order of proceeding in the trial without submitting to the normally attendant burdens.''
Under existing circumstances we find no reversible error on the part of the trial court in concluding, at close of hearing, the burden of proof was upon plaintiff.
IV. The record fails to disclose whether the action brought by plaintiff was in equity or law. And the trial court gave no consideration to that phase of the case. However, we deem this to here be of little or no significance.
Generally, in an action for declaratory judgment, findings of the trial court, as to conflicting evidence, are conclusive on an appellate court if supported by substantial evidence. Herrmann v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 127 C.A.2d 560, 274 P.2d 501, 506--508; Decter v. Stevenson Properties, 39 C.2d 407, 247 P.2d 11, 18; 26 C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments § 164, page 385; and 2 Anderson, Actions for Declaratory Judgments, Second Ed., section 462, page 1103. See also rules 344(f)(1), (17), R.C.P.; and Hamilton v. Wosepka, Iowa, 154 N.W.2d 164, 166.
But if the case stands in equity, our review is de...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moss v. Mid-American Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
...the Iowa court held that the term "regular use" involved a determination of a question of fact. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin v. Hines, 261 Iowa 738, 156 N.W.2d 118 (1968). In Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. McCoy, 167 F.2d 132 (5th Cir. 1948), a trial court sat as the trier of fact. On ap......
-
Union Ins. Co. (Mut.) v. Iowa Hardware Mut. Ins. Co.
...State Auto. & Cas. Under. By Automobile Underwriters v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., Iowa, 166 N.W.2d 761, 763; General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin v. Hines, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 118, 122; Goodsell v. State Auto and Cas. Underwriters, Iowa, 153 N.W.2d 458, 461; and Youngwirth v. State Farm Mutual Au......
-
Moody v. Bogue
...be cast aside because of error in reasoning on the part of the trial court. (citations omitted)." General Casualty Company of Wisconsin v. Hines, 261 Iowa 738, 749, 156 N.W.2d 118, 125 (1968). The appellate court will attempt to harmonize findings of the trial judge and will not read into t......
-
Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Concrete Products Co.
...upon that coverage in clear and explicit terms. Roach v. Churchman, 431 F.2d 849 (8 Cir. 1970); General Casualty Company of Wisconsin v. Hines, 261 Iowa 738, 156 N.W.2d 118 (1968). In declining to follow the Ohio rule, the federal appellate court in St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Hui......