Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mitchell, 17108-17110.

Decision Date01 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 17108-17110.,17108-17110.
Citation409 F.2d 392
PartiesINDIANA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bonnie MITCHELL, Thomas P. O'Donnell, Administrator of the Estate of Viola Huckenstine, Deceased; Matthews Chevrolet Company; Michael Bresnahan; Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Sandor Korein, Bernard H. Bertrand, E. St. Louis, Ill., Jos. B. McDonnell, Belleville, Ill., Wagner, Conner, Ferguson, Bertrand & Baker, East St. Louis, Ill., for appellants.

William B. Wham, Robert H. Rath, Wham & Wham, Centralia, Ill., for appellee.

Before CASTLE, Chief Judge, and SWYGERT and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges.

CASTLE, Chief Judge.

This declaratory judgment action1 was brought to determine which of two insurance companies provided coverage to the driver of an automobile which was loaned by an automobile agency for the use of the driver while his car was being repaired.On September 13, 1963, while driving the automobile loaned to him by Matthews Chevrolet Company, Michael Bresnahan struck a bridge railing with the car, causing the death of one of his two passengers and injury to the other.The accident occurred in Illinois.The Chevrolet Company was insured by Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company(Lumbermens) and Bresnahan was insured by Allstate.

Two state court suits were filed against Bresnahan and the Matthews Chevrolet Company.The first, filed by Bonnie Mitchell, the injured passenger, alleged that Bresnahan was willfully and wantonly negligent and that Matthews was negligent.Verdict and judgment were rendered against Bresnahan for $18,000 and costs, and verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of Matthews.The second suit was filed by the administrator of Viola Huckenstine, the passenger who was killed, and alleged similar conduct by Bresnahan and Matthews.That suit is still pending.

Although Lumbermens assumed the defense of Matthews in both cases, it refused, upon Allstate's demand, to defend Bresnahan on the ground that Bresnahan was not insured under its policy since he was covered by Allstate.Allstate then assumed Bresnahan's defense in both cases.The relevant clauses in the policies read as follows:

"ALLSTATE.
Limits of Liability:

A) Bodilly Injury Liability $10,000 — each person 20,000 — each occurrence

PART I — Automobile Liability Insurance
Coverage A — Bodily Injury.
Coverage B — Property Damage.
Allstate shall pay for an insured all damages which the insured shall be legally obligated to pay because of:
A) Bodily injury sustained by any person, and
B) Injury to or destruction of property arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use, including loading and unloading, of the owned automobile or a non-owned automobile.
Allstate shall defend any lawsuit, even if groundless, false or fraudulent, against any insured for such damages which are payable under the terms of this policy, but may make such settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient.
* * * * * *
DEFINITION OF WORDS USED UNDER THIS PART
* * * * * *
2.a) Owned automobile means the vehicle described on the Supplement Page, and, as defined herein, any replacement automobile, any additional automobile, any temporary substitute automobile, and any trailer owned by the named insured;
* * * * * *
d) Temporary substitute automobile means any automobile, including a trailer, while temporarily used as a substitute for the owned automobile or trailer when withdrawn from normal use because of its breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction.
* * * * * *
If There is Other Insurance.
Allstate shall not be liable under this Part I for a greater proportion of any loss than the applicable limit of liability stated on the Supplement Page bears to the total applicable limit of liability of all collectible insurance against such loss; provided, however, the insurance with respect to a temporary substitute automobile or a nonowned automobile shall be excess insurance over any other collectible insurance.
INDIANA LUMBERMENS
Limits of Liability:

$100,000 — each person 300,000 — each accident

* * * * * *
PERSONS INSURED.Each of the following is an insured under Part I, except as provided below:
1) The named insured
* * * * * *
In consideration of the reduced rate of premium made applicable to the insurance under Part I Liability it is agreed that the policy is amended as follows:
1.Paragraph 3 of "Persons Insured" is amended to read as follows * * *
3.With respect to an automobile to which the insurance applies under paragraph 1(a) of the Automobile Hazards, any of the following persons while using such automobile with the permission of the named insured, provided such person\'s actual operation or (if he is not operating) his other actual use thereof is within the scope of such permission.
(a) * * *
(b) Any other person, but only if no other valid and collectible automobile liability insurance, either primary or excess, with limits of liability at least equal to the minimum limits specified by the financial responsibility law of the state in which the automobile is primarily garaged, is available to such person.* * *

Thus, each insurer has attempted to provide for liability only to the extent that "other insurance" is not available.It is uncontested that if either policy had not existed the other would have provided coverage.The presence of both, however, necessitates the inquiry as to which, if either, of the "other insurance" clauses is effective.The district court held that the Lumbermens policy "never came to life" by virtue of its terms, and therefore Allstate must bear, within the monetary limits of its policy, the entire loss.We agree.

Initially, we note that two possible solutions might be applied to this type of case.First, one or the other of the insurers may be held to bear the loss, depending on the language of the contracts.Second, both of the "other insurance"...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
23 cases
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Burgin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas
    • 19 Noviembre 1990
    ...(Tex.Civ.App.1969); Jensen v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 208 Neb. 487, 304 N.W.2d 51 (1981). 5 See Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 409 F.2d 392 (7th Cir.1969); American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 350 So.2d 353 (Fla.App.1977); Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co.......
  • Union Ins. Co. (Mut.) v. Iowa Hardware Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 1970
    ...292 F.Supp. 554, aff'd (5 Cir.), 403 F.2d 717; Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mitchell (D.C.), 285 F. Supp. 969, aff'd (7 Cir.), 409 F.2d 392; Continental Cas. Co. v. Weekes, Fla., 74 So.2d 367, 46 A.L.R.2d 1159; Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co., Ky., 415 S.W......
  • Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 30 Julio 1969
    ...Auto Ins. Co., 292 F.2d 554 (N.D.Ala.1968); Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 285 F.Supp. 969 (E.D.Ill.1968), aff'd 409 F.2d 392 (7th Cir. 1969); Continental Cas. Co. v. Weekes, 74 So.2d 367, 46 A.L.R.2d 1159 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1954); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Globe Ind. Co., ......
  • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Chappell
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 15 Marzo 1971
    ...Insurance Exchange (Tex.Civ.App.1969), 437 S.W.2d 390, reversed by Supreme Court 444 S.W.2d 583 (1969); Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mitchell, 409 F.2d 392 (CA-7, 1969); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co., 269 N.C. 341, 152 S.E.2d 436 (1967); Continental Casualty......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 11 Limits Issues
    • United States
    • The Handbook on Additional Insureds (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...Brown v. Travelers Ins. Co., 610 A.2d 127, 129-30 (R.I. 1992) (gathering cases for different approaches taken by courts).[64] . 409 F.2d 392 (7th Cir. 1969). Notably, the phrase "super-escape clause" had not yet been coined. However, the escape clause at issue "specifically excluded coverag......
  • CHAPTER 14
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...to the car owner’s policy. Employers rests its position upon construction of Illinois law in Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 409 F.2d 392 (7th Cir. 1969), and Auto. Underwriters, Inc. v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co., 120 Ill. App. 2d 159, 256 N.E. 2d 463 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970) rev’d, ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Handbook on Additional Insureds (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...Ins. Agents of Okla., Inc. v. Okla. Tpk. Auth., 876 P.2d 675 (Okla. 1994), 385n1 Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company v. Mitchell, 409 F.2d 392 (7th Cir. 1969), 254-255 Indian Harbor Ins. v. Zucker, 553 B.R. 633 (W.D. Mich. 2016), 339n23 Ind. Ins. Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 415 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT