Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 8 Div. 700

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtCLAYTON; All the Justices concur, except LIVINGSTON
Citation70 So.2d 421,260 Ala. 330,43 A.L.R.2d 599
Decision Date19 November 1953
Docket Number8 Div. 700
Parties, 43 A.L.R.2d 599 GREAT AMERICAN INS. CO. v. DEDMON.

Page 421

70 So.2d 421
260 Ala. 330, 43 A.L.R.2d 599
GREAT AMERICAN INS. CO.
v.
DEDMON.
8 Div. 700.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Nov. 19, 1953.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1954.

Jos S. Mead, Birmingham, for appellant.

Guin & Guin, Russellville, for appellee.

[260 Ala. 331] CLAYTON, Justice.

This is a suit on a policy of automobile insurance, containing what is known as 'Comprehensive Coverage.' The pertinent part of the policy is:

'Coverage D--Comprehensive Loss of or Damage to the Automobile, Except by Collision or Upset.

'To pay for any direct and accidental loss of or damage to the automobile, hereinafter called loss, except loss caused by collision of the automobile with another object or by upset of the automobile or by collision of the automobile with a vehicle to which it is attached. Breakage of glass and loss caused by missiles, falling objects, fire, theft, explosion, earthquake, windstorm, hail, water, flood, vandalism, riot or civil commotion shall not be deemed loss caused by collision or upset.'

The complaint is in two counts. Count 1 avers that the insured suffered the complete loss of his automobile by reason of theft. Count 2 avers that he suffered complete loss of his automobile by reason of vandalism. At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court, at the request of the defendant, gave the affirmative charge as to count 1, and submitted the case to the jury under count 2. There was verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant's motion for new trial was overruled, and defendant appeals.

Succinctly stated, the facts necessary for us to consider are that plaintiff left his automobile parked in front of the Red

Page 422

Bay hotel, with the ignition locked and the key in his pocket. Some time after eleven o'clock, on the night of July 13, 1952, plaintiff's 20-year old son, Larry Dedmon, came to the place where the car was parked and, in some way, started the engine and drove the car to the place where it was overturned and badly damaged.

Larry Dedmon previously had been suffering from a mental disorder, dementia praecox, and had been treated at Bryce Hospital from July, 1950, until March, 1951, when he was discharged therefrom, at which time he was practically normal. Medical experts testified that dementia praecox may in some cases recur, while in others, a permanent cure is effected after one period of treatment. At the time of the accident, Larry was living in Red Bay with his sister and was not permitted to drive his father's car without some other member of the family being with him. There was lay testimony to the effect that Larry was drawing compensation from the Veterans Administration on account of a nervous condition. Also, testimony was introduced that Mrs. Dedmon, the mother of Larry, had signed a petition for the purpose of having him declared insane, in order that he might draw compensation, but the petition was never filed in court. Further testimony was that Larry was working as a cook in a restaurant and living a normal life, but was highly nervous.

A decision in the case depends upon the construction which shall be applied to the word 'vandalism,' as used in the insurance policy. Appellant, defendant below, insists that in order to constitute vandalism, there must be a specific intent to injure or destroy the particular article involved, which, in this case, was the automobile.

Appellee relies upon the proposition that damages suffered as a proximate result of a wanton, unlawful act, done with a reckless and gross disregard of the consequences, is sufficient to constitute vandalism under the terms of the policy, and thus to remove the damages from the non-liability exception in case of collision or upset. To support this position, appellee cites the alleged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Azar, No. 38525
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • February 8, 1961
    ...sense, but hold that the proper construction should be such as is considered in the popular mind.' Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, 423, 43 A.L.R.2d 599. The term 'malicious mischief' includes wilful physical injury to or destruction of property in general, rea......
  • Montgomery v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, No. 15786
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • October 28, 1994
    ...mischief" must show that damage was caused by acts intended to damage the property in question); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 70 So.2d 421, 422 (Ala.1953) (vandalism originates from the Vandals, a Germanic people of the 4th and 5th centuries known for pillaging other CONCLUSION For th......
  • King v. North River Ins. Co., No. 21809
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 22, 1982
    ...a wrongful act. Parnell v. Rohrer Chevrolet Company, 95 N.J.Super. 471, 231 A.2d 824 (1967); Great American Insurance Company v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, 43 A.L.R.2d 599 (1953). The legal malice necessary to establish vandalism within the meaning of the policy need not amount to ......
  • Ducote v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., No. 45484
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • May 29, 1961
    ...are uniformly based on two cases, Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., D.C.Mun.App., 41 A.2d 168, and Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, 43 A.L.R.2d 599. In the absence of a pronouncement of this court on the subject these authorities at most would be persuasive......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Azar, No. 38525
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • February 8, 1961
    ...sense, but hold that the proper construction should be such as is considered in the popular mind.' Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, 423, 43 A.L.R.2d 599. The term 'malicious mischief' includes wilful physical injury to or destruction of property in general, rea......
  • Montgomery v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, No. 15786
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • October 28, 1994
    ...mischief" must show that damage was caused by acts intended to damage the property in question); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 70 So.2d 421, 422 (Ala.1953) (vandalism originates from the Vandals, a Germanic people of the 4th and 5th centuries known for pillaging other CONCLUSION For th......
  • King v. North River Ins. Co., No. 21809
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 22, 1982
    ...a wrongful act. Parnell v. Rohrer Chevrolet Company, 95 N.J.Super. 471, 231 A.2d 824 (1967); Great American Insurance Company v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, 43 A.L.R.2d 599 (1953). The legal malice necessary to establish vandalism within the meaning of the policy need not amount to ......
  • Ducote v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., No. 45484
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • May 29, 1961
    ...are uniformly based on two cases, Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., D.C.Mun.App., 41 A.2d 168, and Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, 43 A.L.R.2d 599. In the absence of a pronouncement of this court on the subject these authorities at most would be persuasive......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT