GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. Thielepape, 25726.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 25726.,25726. |
| Citation | 400 F.2d 852 |
| Parties | GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Fred C. THIELEPAPE, by next friend, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Edward P. Fahey, Groce, Hebdon, Fahey & Smith, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.
L. Tonnett Byrd, Kuykendall & Kuykendall, Austin, Tex., for appellee Fred C. Thielepape.
Byrd, Davis, Eisenberg & Clark, Austin, Tex., for appellees Lillian G. Bush and Otis L. Bush.
Before GEWIN, PHILLIPS* and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.
This action against the appellant insurer was brought by Fred Thielepape to enforce the terms of a family automobile liability insurance policy issued to Thielepape's father. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment, proceeded to a hearing and rendered judgment for Thielepape. We affirm.
The issue presented to the district court was whether Thielepape was covered under the policy's "non-owned automobile" provision which extends coverage to any family member driving a non-owned automobile if the driver "reasonably believed" his use of the automobile was with the permission of the owner.1 The appellant contends that the findings of the District Court are clearly erroneous.
We have examined the record in light of the appellant's contentions and are unable to conclude that the trial judge committed error. Our conclusion is influenced in part by the highly subjective nature of the issue confronting the lower court in determining whether Thielepape reasonably believed he was driving the car with the permission of the owner. In a case of this nature the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses is of particular significance.
Judgment affirmed.
* Judge Harry Phillips of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
1 The policy provided coverage as follows:
(2) any relative, but only with respect to a private passenger automobile or trailer, provided his actual operation or (if he is not operating) the other actual use thereof is with the permission, or reasonably believed to be with the permission, of the owner and is within the scope of such permission. * * *
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 11488
...we have thoroughly reviewed the record with special emphasis on the testimony of William Horton. (Cf., General Ins. Co. of America v. Thielepape, 400 F.2d 852, 853 (5th Cir., 1968), where the Court, in upholding a decision of the district court that a subsequent permittee was covered under ......
-
U.S. v. Brown
...highly subjective matters, the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses is of particular significance. See, e.g., General Ins. Co. v. Thielepape, 400 F.2d 852 (5th Cir.1968). Because the evidence was sufficient, Mullis' conviction for money laundering is AFFIRMED. MOYE, Senior District Judg......