Haines v. Harrison
Decision Date | 27 May 1948 |
Docket Number | 40484 |
Citation | 211 S.W.2d 489,357 Mo. 956 |
Parties | Henry Haines, Appellant, v. Ben E. Harrison, Administrator of the Estate of Gerald Thomas Harrison, Deceased, and the Indemnity Insurance Company of North America |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
James M. Tatum and Ruark & Ruark for appellant.
(1) The contract is one of liability as distinguished from indemnity despite the no-action clause. Brucker v. Georgia Casualty Co., 32 S.W.2d 1088; Graff v. Continental Auto Ins., 35 S.W.2d 926; Kurre v. American Indemnity Co., 17 S.W.2d 685. (2) And liability to the beneficiaries arose at the time of the occurrence of the injury. Pennsylvania Cas. Co. v. Phoenix, 139 F.2d 823; Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., Ltd., v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 100 F.2d 441; Hocden v. Allstate Ins Co., 147 S.W.2d 182. (3) The injured party (plaintiff) was one of the beneficiaries of the insurance contract. 8 Appleman, Ins. Law and Practice, sec. 4831, pp. 220-221; Huddleston v. Manhatten Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 148 S.W.2d 74; Binswanger v. Employers' Liability Assur Corp., 28 S.W.2d 448; Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 136 S.W.2d 289. (4) Assuming action and judgment is a contractual prerequisite, such is merely a mode of proof of loss. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 100 F.2d 441; Hocden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 147 S.W.2d 182. (5) And will not be required when such condition is impossible of performance. Strauther v. General American Life Ins. Co., 141 S.W.2d 128; Yeats v. Dodson, 127 S.W.2d 652; Schoen v. American Natl. Ins. Co., 180 S.W.2d 57.
Bond & Bond, Ray Bond and John S. Bond for respondents.
(1) Under the law of this state, there is no cause of action for personal injuries against the estate of a deceased alleged tort-feasor. Sec. 3670, R.S. 1939. Johnson v. Frank, 354 Mo. 767, 191 S.W.2d 618; Heil v. Rule, 327 Mo. 84, 34 S.W.2d 90; Schupe v. Martin, 12 S.W.2d 450. (2) Under the law of this state an action for personal injuries cannot be brought direct against the alleged tort-feasor's liability insurer nor can the liability insurer be joined as a party defendant in an action against the alleged tort-feasor, for the reason that there is not privity of contract between the injured party and the liability insurer of the party whose negligence is alleged to have caused the injuries; a liability insurance contract being for the benefit of the insured and not for the benefit of third parties. Taverno v. American Auto Ins. Co., 112 S.W.2d 941; Buehler v. Festus Mercantile Co., 119 S.W.2d 961. (3) It is even improper in this state, to inject into the trial of a case the fact that a liability insurance company is defending or is interested in the outcome of the case. Rytersky v. O'Brine, 355 Mo. 22, 70 S.W.2d 538; Buehler v. Festus Mercantile Co., 343 Mo. 130, 119 S.W.2d 961; Pitcher v. Schoch, 345 Mo. 1184, 139 S.W.2d 463. (4) The term "liability insurance" as used in the decisions cited by appellant, refers to the liability of the insurer to the insured, and distinguishes that type of insurance from indemnity insurance. There is no liability, under such a policy on the part of the insurer to the injured person and no right of recovery against the insurer unless the injured person has a cause of action and reduces same to a final judgment, in which event the insurer becomes indebted to the insured in the amount of the judgment, within the policy limits, and such indebtedness may be enforced by the injured party as incident to his judgment by legal garnishment or statutory action in equity. Secs. 6009, 6010, R.S. 1939; Schott v. Continental Auto Ins. Under-writers, 326 Mo. 92, 31 S.W.2d 7; Miller v. Collins, 328 Mo. 313, 40 S.W.2d 1062; Lajoie v. Central West Casualty Co., 228 Mo.App. 701, 71 S.W.2d 803. (5) The fact that a party is protected by a liability insurance policy does not enlarge the liability of such insured to third parties or create a cause of action against such insured for damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by a third party, where no cause of action in favor of said third party against the insured exists under the law. Stedem v. Jewish Memorial Hospital Assn., 187 S.W.2d 469; Dille v. St. Luke's Hospital, 196 S.W.2d 615.
Westhues, C. Bohling and Barrett, CC., concur.
The trial court sustained a motion filed by the defendants to dismiss plaintiff's petition on the ground that no cause of action was stated. From the judgment entered plaintiff appealed. Appellant's brief contains a concise and fair statement of the case and the issues presented. We are adopting said statement in toto. It reads as follows:
"To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person or persons, caused by accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile.
B. Financial Responsibility Laws
"Such insurance as is afforded by this policy for bodily injury liability or property damage liability shall comply with the provisions of the motor vehicle financial responsibility law of any state or province which shall be applicable with respect to any such liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile during the policy period, to the extent of the coverage and limits of liability stated in this policy. The insured agrees to reimburse the company for any payment made by the company which it would not have been obligated to make under the terms of this policy except for the agreement contained in this paragraph.
G. "No action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the insured shall have fully complied with all the terms of this policy, nor until the amount of the insured's obligation to pay shall have been finally determined either by judgment against the insured after actual trial or by written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the company.
Appellant under points and authorities, contends that the contract of insurance in this case is one of liability as distinguished from indemnity, despite the non-action clause contained in the policy; that liability to the beneficiaries arose at the time of the occurrence of the injury. A number of cases are cited, for example, Brucker v. Georgia Casualty Co., 32 S.W.2d 1088, 326 Mo. 856, wherein this court held that a contract of insurance, similar to the policy here in question, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cowley v. Texas Snubbing Control, Inc.
...policy. The settlement agreement purported to release Underwriters as to that claim, as well as Stapleton's. 23 In Haines v. Harrison, 357 Mo. 956, 211 S.W.2d 489 (1948), the death of the insured prevented the injured party from securing judgment against him, as he was required to do as a c......
-
Cotton v. Iowa Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...determined by judgment against the insured or by written agreement between the injured, the insured and the insurer. Haines v. Harrison, 357 Mo. 956, 211 S.W.2d 489, 492[3-7]; Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 295, 127 A.L.R. 163; Taverno v. American Auto In......