Hounihan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. of Bloomington, Ill.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1969
• Docket Number: No. 8780,8780
• Citation: 441 S.W.2d 58
• Parties: Truitt HOUNIHAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 58

441 S.W.2d 58

Truitt HOUNIHAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8780.

Springfield Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 5, 1969.

Harold D. Jones, Bock & Jones, New Madrid, for defendant-appellant.

James M. Reeves, Ward & Reeves, Caruthersville, for plaintiff-respondent.

HOGAN, Presiding Judge.

This is an action on the collision coverage provisions of an automobile insurance policy. Trial to a jury has resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $823.80, and the defendant has appealed. There is no dispute that the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged and that it was covered by the defendant's policy and that the defendant is liable under the policy. As the defendant puts the question in its brief, '(t)he only dispute and the only issue involved is the amount of damages recoverable under the terms of the * * * policy.'

The relevant section of the insurance policy provides: (emphasis ours)

'COVERAGE G-Deductible Collision. To pay for loss to the owned automobile caused by collision but only for the amount of each such loss in excess of the deductible amount stated in the declarations as applicable hereto. The deductible amount shall not apply if the collision is with another automobile insured with this company.

'Limits of Liability--Settlement Options--Coverages D, D-50, F and G. The limit of the company's liability for loss shall not exceed the actual cash value of the property, or if the loss is of a part thereof the actual cash value of such part, at time of loss, nor what it would then cost to repair or replace such property with like kind and quality, less depreciation and deductible amount applicable. The limit of liability for loss to all wearing apparel and luggage of one or more persons shall not exceed $200 for each accident.'

The insured vehicle was a 1960 GMC pickup truck which the plaintiff used on his farm in Pemiscot County. Plaintiff bought the truck in 1960 for $2,050, less a trade-in allowance of $850, and used it continuously up to November 5, 1966. There was evidence tending to show that at the time it was damaged, the vehicle was in better than average condition. The plaintiff produced service records showing that it had been continuously maintained in good working order, and several witnesses testified to the effect that the truck was 'quite a bit better than average,' or was in 'very good' running condition, or that it was 'a real good clean truck.' A Mr. Monan, who sold the truck to the plaintiff, testified that in 1963 the motor block had been replaced with a 'case-hardened' block, which had as the witness recalled, 8,000 miles on it.

On the other side of the ledger, so to speak, it was shown that the speedometer reading on the truck at the time it was wrecked was 111,222 miles, that it had been used continuously in the fields 'to haul water to the cotton pickers, and pull a trailer once in a while,' and that it had been damaged before November 5, 1966, once by a fire which had 'done some burning underneath the hood,' and once in some kind of accident which had required replacement of a door. Plaintiff's service records indicate that the truck had required repair on 37 occasions between June 25, 1962, and November 3, 1966, and that these various repairs had cost $1,213.87.

Plaintiff produced an assortment of more or less qualified witnesses who testified to the reasonable market value of the truck at the time it was damaged. Bernard Brockett, Emerson Smith, Jr., Robert Garrett and and M. D. Wilson were farmers who had seen the insured truck. In one measure or another, all were familiar with the value of farm trucks, and they all testified that in their opinion, the vehicle had a fair market value of $1,000 immediately before the accident. Mr. Hounihan, the plaintiff, testified that the reasonable market value of his pickup immediately before the accident was $1,000. Mr. House, an automobile salesman who had seen and driven the truck shortly before it was damaged, stated that he would say its fair market value was 'about a thousand dollars.' Mr. Monan, who was 'trying to trade for the car (sic) about ten days or two weeks before it was wrecked,' testified that the fair market value of the truck '* * * would run between--oh, a thousand fifty and nine and a half.'

For the defendant, a Mr. Farr, who sold new and used cars and trucks in an adjoining county, testified that the reasonable market value of a truck like the plaintiff's, in good condition, would be 'five to six hundred dollars.' A Mr. Owens, a salvage dealer, testified that the reasonable market value of the truck after it was damaged was 'about a hundred and sixty-five dollars.' Mr. Owens was asked to express his opinion of the fair market value of the truck before it was damaged, based on his inspection afterward, but he was not permitted to answer.

The defendant also had the evidence of a Mr. Clevenger, an adjuster. Mr. Clevenger testified that he had inspected the insured vehicle shortly after the accident, and had found it to be a 1960 model GMC one-half ton pickup with a speedometer reading of 111,222 miles. It was in slightly below average condition. Mr. Clevenger was asked the 'Red Book' value of the vehicle, and the 'Red Book' was produced, but the average value listed was excluded on the ground that it was 'wholly immaterial.' Mr. Clevenger was shown to have considerable experience in dealing with automobiles, both as a salesman and as an adjuster, and he stated that in his opinion, the reasonable market value of the insured truck prior to the collision was $535. On this evidence, as indicated, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $785, plus interest in the amount of $38.80.

The first point for discussion is the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in excluding competent evidence of the cost and location of a replacement vehicle. In this connection, the defendant produced two witnesses, a Mr. Farr and Mr. Clevenger, defendant's adjuster. Mr. Farr, an automobile salesman of considerable experience, was asked to give his opinion of the reasonable market value, in November of 1966, of a 1960 GMC one-half ton pickup truck, straight transmission, which had something in excess of a hundred thousand miles on it. Over objection, Mr. Farr was permitted to state that in his opinion, the reasonable market value of such a vehicle would be '(a)n average, five to six hundred dollars.' Subsequently, Mr. Farr was shown a snapshot, which he identified as a picture of a 1960 model GMC pickup truck, six cylinder, straight transmission. He testified further that the vehicle in the picture was located 'on our used car lot' in Kennett, Missouri, in December of 1966. Mr. Farr was then asked if Mr. Clevenger had 'contacted' him 'relative to such a vehicle,' and he answered, '(h)e did.' Counsel then inquired 'what the price was that you offered to take for that?' An objection was sustained. Counsel then made an offer of proof, as follows:

'Your Honor, we offer to prove by this witness, who has identified Defendant's Exhibit 3, that this 1960 GMC pickup truck which he had on the lot available for sale in the period of time that we're talking about here today, that it was in good condition, and that he offered to take $480.00 for same.

'THE COURT: All right, the offering will be denied.'

Counsel then pursued the same line of inquiry with Mr. Clevenger, the adjuster, using the same snapshot. When the court questioned the relevancy of that line of questioning, counsel made the following offer of proof:

'Your Honor, we offer to prove by this witness that the truck shown on Defendant's Exhibit 3 is a 1960 GMC pickup truck of the same make and model as the one involved here, and it was in as good or better condition than the one we have involved here, and that in...