Jamison v. Phoenix Indemnity Co.

Decision Date08 August 1941
Docket NumberNo. 6361.,6361.
Citation40 F. Supp. 87
PartiesJAMISON v. PHOENIX INDEMNITY CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Charles M. Morris by Alex Eber, both of New Brunswick, N. J., for plaintiff.

Edwards, Smith & Dawson by Raymond Dawson, all of Jersey City, N. J., for defendant.

FORMAN, District Judge.

On November 14, 1935, defendant through its agent, L. M. Brooks, wrote a policy of insurance covering a 1929 two and one-half ton Chevrolet truck owned by Joseph LaRocco. The policy was retained by Brooks because it was written upon a credit agreement between him and LaRocco. On January 3, 1936, LaRocco made a payment of $10 which was applied to the premiums due. On April 3, 1936, LaRocco sold the Chevrolet truck and on the same day purchased a 1930 two and one-half ton truck, a Ford, transferring the license plates from the Chevrolet on April 6, 1936. The policy of insurance contained the following recital with reference to replacements: "Automatic Coverage — Additional Automobiles. If this Policy, at the inception date thereof, covers all of the automobiles owned by the named Assured, and Statement 7 is answered to that effect, this Policy will automatically cover any other automobile purchased by the named Assured during the Policy period and used for pleasure purposes or in the business of the named Assured as described in Statement 1, provided the named Assured notifies the Company of such newly purchased automobile within ten days of the date thereof. If this Policy does not cover all automobiles owned by the named Assured, this Policy will automatically cover any other automobile, of the type described in the policy, purchased by the named Assured during the Policy period and used for the purposes described in Statement 5, provided (1) such newly purchased automobile replaces an automobile described in the Policy, (2) coverage for the replaced automobile terminates as of the date of purchase of the new automobile, and (3) the named Assured notifies the Company within ten days of the date thereof."

On April 9, 1936, within ten days after the acquisition of the Ford truck, it was involved in an accident injuring plaintiff.

On April 14, 1936, defendant cancelled the insurance policy for non payment of premiums, but not until July 21, 1936, did the defendant receive notice that plaintiff had been injured by the operation of the Ford truck. This notice was not given by LaRocco, the assured, but by a third party.

On July 31, 1936, defendant's representative interviewed LaRocco and learned the facts outlined above as to the transfer of the trucks and the accident of April 9, 1936. On August 3, 1936, defendant disclaimed liability on the ground that the policy did not cover the Ford truck.

Plaintiff has recovered judgment in the Common Pleas Court of Middlesex County, State of New Jersey, against LaRocco for $5,000, and now sues the defendant on the policy of insurance.

The above facts were submitted to this court on stipulation, and defendant now moves for a directed verdict in its favor.

Plaintiff construes the provision with reference to automatic coverage quoted supra to mean that the Ford truck was automatically insured for a period of ten days from the date of acquisition, and that since the accident occurred within that period, the policy is effective irrespective of notice. He argues that this construction is consonant with court decisions and legislation recognizing that the public at large has an interest in insurance contracts, citing Neel v. Indemnity Insurance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Falciani
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 23 Marzo 1965
    ...434, 439 (Mo.Ct.App.1931); Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. Relder, supra, 308 F.2d, at p. 766. Contra, Jamison v. Phoenix Indemnity Co., 40 F.Supp. 87 (D.C.N.J.1941). Note that Condition 2 provides that 'The named insured shall, upon request, furnish reasonable proof of the number of s......
  • Farm & City Ins. Co. v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1993
    ...reached a conclusion contrary to the current majority rule. See Jamison v. Phoenix Indem. Co., 40 F.Supp. 87 (D.N.J.1941). The court in Jamison interpreted the policy to extend automatic coverage during the notice period only if notice is given the insurer during that period. Id. at An earl......
  • Kelly v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INSURANCE CO.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 29 Julio 1966
    ...either before or after the termination of the period. See Continental Casualty Co. v. Trenner, D.C., 35 F.Supp. 643; Jamison v. Phoenix Indemnity Co., D.C., 40 F. Supp. 87. But we are not now concerned with these questions for in the pending case the accident took place after the expiration......
  • THE EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORP. v. Howey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 2 Diciembre 1954
    ...Mitcham v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 4 Cir., 127 F.2d 27; Continental Casualty Co. v. Trenner, D. C., 35 F.Supp. 643; Jamison v. Phoenix Indemnity Co., D.C., 40 F.Supp. 87; Province Washington Indemnity Co. v. Edes, D.C., 109 F.Supp. It is also admitted that a solicitor has no authority to w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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