Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Maddix, 91-CA-000853-MR

• Decision Date: 16 October 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-CA-000853-MR,91-CA-000853-MR
• Citation: 842 S.W.2d 871
• Parties: HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Judy MADDIX, as Administratrix of the Estate of James Scott Holbrook, II; Judy Maddix, Individually; and James Scott Holbrook, Individually, Appellees.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

Page 871

842 S.W.2d 871

HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Judy MADDIX, as Administratrix of the Estate of James Scott

Holbrook, II; Judy Maddix, Individually; and

James Scott Holbrook, Individually, Appellees.

No. 91-CA-000853-MR.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 16, 1992.

George B. Hocker, Lynn M. Hartzman, Lexington, for appellant.

Richard W. Martin, Ashland, W. Jeffrey Scott, Grayson, for appellees.

Before JOHNSON, MILLER and WILHOIT, JJ.

JOHNSON, Judge.

On February 18, 1989, Scott Justice lost control of the Chevrolet Cavalier he was driving and crashed into a parked car. Scott and one passenger were killed, another passenger was injured. Subsequently, Ralph Justice (Scott's father) filed a declaratory judgment action against Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (hereinafter "Hartford"). The issue is whether the car driven by Scott Justice is covered by the "garage policy" which Hartford had issued to Justice Auto Sales (a business owned by Ralph Justice). To resolve this question, we must decide whether Justice Auto Sales was the owner of the Cavalier. The trial court granted summary judgment to Justice, holding that the car was owned by Justice Auto Sales and therefore was covered by the policy in question.

The parties agree on the following relevant facts: the Cavalier had been obtained by Ralph Justice from Glass Auto Sales in trade for a truck (which was owned by Justice Auto Sales) thirteen days before the fatal wreck; Glass Auto Sales still held title to the Cavalier at the time of the wreck; and Ralph Justice intended to transfer title into Scott Justice's name at some point, but had not yet done so. Moreover, it appears to be unquestioned that the policy provides coverage if the automobile was owned by Justice Auto Sales. ¹

Appellant earnestly insists that this Court's opinion in Cowles v. Rogers, Ky.App., 762 S.W.2d 414 (1988), mandates a finding that Justice Auto Sales did not own the Cavalier. We agree that Cowles is relevant, but we do not believe that it requires a decision favorable to the appellant in this case. In Cowles the Court held that ownership of motor vehicles was no longer to be decided by the general law of sales, but was instead governed by the titling and registration statutes, KRS 186A.010 et seq. We look to those statutes to decide who owned the Cavalier.

Under the title statutes, Justice Auto Sales should be held to be the owner of the Cavalier. KRS 186A.220(1) and (5) set out the provisions which motor vehicle dealers must follow when they acquire a vehicle for resale and when they sell a vehicle to a purchaser. ² Those requirements are not the same as the requirements for non-dealers under KRS 186A.215 (the statute upon which the Cowles decision was based). Specifically, a dealer can become the owner of an automobile without actually acquiring title to the automobile. See KRS 186A.220. It does not seem to be disputed that Justice Auto Sales complied with the requirements of KRS 186A.220. It is true that the buying dealer must notify the county clerk within fifteen days after the dealer acquires the vehicle, see KRS 186A.220, but in this case only thirteen days had passed. It seems that Glass Auto Sales and Justice Auto Sales had, at the time of the accident, done everything which was necessary to pass ownership under Kentucky's title statutes. Therefore, Justice Auto Sales should be held to be the owner of the Cavalier...