Hoffman v. Illinois Nat. Casualty Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 9119.,9119. |
| Citation | 159 F.2d 564 |
| Parties | HOFFMAN v. ILLINOIS NAT. CASUALTY CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
George F. Stevens, of Plymouth, Ind., for appellant.
Harry E. Vernon, of Goshen, Ind., for appellee.
Before KERNER and MINTON, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
On April 16, 1943, one Quincy Brown was struck and killed by a tractor owned by plaintiff. Thereafter the administratrix of the estate of Quincy Brown, deceased, sued plaintiff for the recovery of damages for the wrongful death of her decedent. The defendant in this case, Illinois Casualty Company of Springfield, Illinois, was duly notified of the accident and of the filing of the cause of action against plaintiff, but it denied any and all liability and refused to defend the case. The cause for the wrongful death of Brown proceeded to trial in a competent court of record, and the administratrix recovered a judgment against plaintiff for $5,000. To recover his costs and the amount of the judgment, plaintiff sued the Casualty Company. The case was tried by the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
The controlling facts are not in dispute. These facts are that defendant issued to plaintiff its policy, effective March 20, 1943, insuring plaintiff against liability for bodily injury including death, sustained by any person, caused by an accident and arising out of the ownership and use of a Ford tractor, motor No.99T291330. This tractor was used by plaintiff in his business of making daily trips with livestock to Chicago, Illinois, and on April 1, 1943, it was involved in an accident. While the tractor was not completely wrecked, it was not thereafter used or operated by plaintiff. Defendant was notified of the accident and a claim for the damage was made by plaintiff under the policy. On April 9, 1943, while the claim was pending, plaintiff purchased another Ford tractor, motor No. 99T384068, and thereafter used this tractor in his business of hauling livestock. On April 12, 1943, the claim for damage to the first tractor was settled. At the time of the settlement plaintiff said nothing about having purchased the second tractor, but he did tell defendant's adjuster that he did not know whether he wanted to repair the damaged tractor or trade it in on a new one. April 16, 1943, the second tractor, while being operated by plaintiff's agent, was involved in an accident in which Brown was killed.
The issue in this appeal involves an interpretation of the policy, and the ultimate question is whether, under the facts, the policy covered plaintiff's liability for the wrongful death of Brown.
Before discussing the provisions of the policy it is well to recall that the courts, rather uniformly and generally, have laid down the rule that insurance contracts must be construed liberally to the insured and should receive an interpretation consistent with the apparent object and plain intent of the parties, and that when a policy contains provisions reasonably subject to different constructions, one favorable to the insurer and one favorable to the insured, the construction favorable to the insured should prevail.
Defendant contends that the policy insured plaintiff only against the liability imposed by loss arising or resulting from claims made upon him by reason of the use and operation of the tractor described in the policy.
Of course, in the absence of a replacement provision in an automobile liability policy, the policy will not cover liability for an injury caused by an automobile other than the one described in the policy, but in our case the policy provided: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groban v. SS PEGU
...of the assured would have understood them to have, not what the insurer would like to have them mean, Hoffman v. Illinois National Casualty Co., 159 F.2d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 1947), and if there is ambiguity in the meaning of the terms it must be resolved in favor of the assured. See, e. g., ......
-
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Air-Speed, Inc.
...in the decided cases. See, e. g., Mitcham v. Travelers Indem. Co., 127 F.2d 27, 29 (4th Cir. 1942); Hoffman v. Illinois Natl. Cas. Co., 159 F.2d 564, 565-566 (7th Cir. 1947); Yenowine v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 342 F.2d 957, 959 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 830, 86 S.Ct. 68, 1......
-
O'Neal-Vidales v. Clark
...subsequent to the thirty day period, but that coverage during such period remains automatically effective”); Hoffman v. Illinois Nat. Casualty Co., 159 F.2d 564, 566 (7th Cir.1947) (holding that a reasonable person could have assumed from the language in the policy that coverage was automat......
-
Grant v. Emmco Ins. Co.
...it is not required that the insured dispose of that vehicle if it is not operable, are the following: Hoffman v. Illinois National Casualty Co., 159 F.2d 564 (7th Cir., 1947); Maryland Indemnity & Fire Insurance Exchange v. Steers, 221 Md. 380, 157 A.2d 803 (1960); Brescoll v. Nationwide Mu......