Hutton v. Martin, 32162
| Decision Date | 29 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 32162,32162 |
| Citation | 262 P.2d 202,43 Wn.2d 574 |
| Parties | HUTTON, v. MARTIN ex al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Kenneth C. Hawkins, Yakima, Stephen E. Chaffee, Sunnyside, for appellant.
Gavin, Robinson & Kendrick, Yakima, Rode, Cook, Watkins & Orth, Seattle, for respondent.
By this garnishment proceeding, plaintiff seeks to compel defendant city's insurer to pay a judgment for the wrongful death of her husband, under the terms of a public liability indemnity policy.
The fatal accident occurred October 14, 1949, at two o'clock in the afternoon. Defendant city was then insured under an indemnity policy issued by the garnishee defendant. This policy expired October 15, 1949, at 12:01 a. m. It contained the following provisions:
'3. Limits of Liability. (No insurance is afforded under any Insuring Agreement unless specific limits of liability as to such Insuring Agreement are set forth below):
'Insuring Agreement I(a)
'Bodily injury, sickness, disease or death--$5,000. each person and subject to that limit for each person. $25,000. each occurrence.'
Plaintiff asserted that, on September 20, 1949, defendant city and the insurer entered into an oral agreement by which the stated limits in the policy were increased.
This issue came on for trial before a jury, and, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the court sustained a challenge to its sufficiency, interposed by the garnishee defendant, and discharged the jury.
The trial court correctly considered the evidence as we must consider it, that is, that a challenge to its sufficiency admits the truth of the evidence of the party against whom the challenge is made, and that this evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn from it must be viewed most strongly against the challenger.
The alleged oral contract between the insurance company and the city was claimed to have been made at a meeting of the city council, September 20, 1949. An agent of the company attended this meeting. There was a discussion of the cost and possibility of an increase in the limits of liability in the city's policy. Assuming that it was agreed between the city and the agent that such limits were to be increased, the narrow issue for decision is, when was this agreement to be effective?
The words used by the city officials at the meeting are not in evidence. At best, the record contains words of conclusion, stating what they supposed or what their understanding was. There is no testimony by any of the city officials of any words used by them which could support a verdict based upon an oral agreement that the limits of the policy in question should be increased immediately, that is, on the date of the meeting, rather than when the policy was to be renewed upon its expiration date. Further, there is no evidence that the agent of the company, who attended the meeting, expressed any words which would support such an agreement.
It is significant, but not controlling upon a demurrer to the evidence, that the minutes of the council meeting, dated September 20, 1949, read as follows:
The trial court correctly sustained the demurrer to plaintiff's evidence.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider whether or not her action is, in effect, one for reformation of a contract of insurance, with its inherent question of her capacity to bring such an action. Also, we need not consider whether it is possible to make or modify a contract of insurance by an oral agreement.
This leaves for consideration but one other contention advanced by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burris v. Grange Mut. Companies
...the limitation.' 13 ALR 3d 1228, 1234." See, also, New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Hart (1943), 153 Fla. 840, 16 So.2d 118; Hutton v. Martin (1953), 43 Wash.2d 574, 262 P.2d 202; Cradoct v. Employers Cas. Co. (Tex.App.1987), 733 S.W.2d 301, which reach similar In Bernat v. Socke (1955), 180 Pa.Su......
-
Thompson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...arising from loss of consortium due to bodily injury of one's spouse were contained in the per claim limit of liability of a policy. Hutton, supra; and Williams, supra. In cases such as these, where the insurer has carefully set forth the limits of liability for which the company would be r......
-
Lepic By and Through Lepic v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co.
...v. Acosta, 479 So.2d 1089, 1090-91 (Miss.1985); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Bisson, 449 A.2d 1226, 1227 (N.H.1982); Hutton v. Martin, 43 Wash. 574, 577, 262 P.2d 202, 204 (1953); Thompson v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 34 Wash.App. 151, 161-62, 660 P.2d 307, 313 We have previously recognized that loss......
-
Davis v. Foley
...of one person the "each person" limit applies); Cradoct v. Employers Casualty Co., 733 S.W.2d 301 (Tex.Ct.App.1987); Hutton v. Martin, 43 Wash.2d 574, 262 P.2d 202 (1953); 15A George J. Couch, Couch on Insurance 2d § 56.22 (2d 1983). Cf. Herring v. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co., 144 Ariz. 2......