Jenkins v. Mayflower Ins. Exchange
Citation | 380 P.2d 145,93 Ariz. 287 |
Decision Date | 27 March 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 6893,6893 |
Parties | Jackson JENKINS and Germaine Jenkins, husband and wife, Appellants, v. MAYFLOWER INSURANCE EXCHANGE, an Insurance corporation or business association, Appellee. |
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Udall & Udall and Goldbaum, Goetz & Diamos, Tucson, for appellants.
Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Richmond, Tucson, for appellee.
Appellants were plaintiffs in a suit against defendant insurance company to collect a judgment previously obtained in a suit for personal injuries against insureds of the company. The case was submitted to the trial judge on a stipulated statement of facts and judgment was entered for the defendant. It is from this judgment that plaintiffs appeal.
Plaintiffs were passengers in a car owned by defendants-insureds. The car was being driven by John Parrott, an airman in the U. S. Air Force. Defendants-insureds were also in the car and had directed Parrott to drive. As a result of Parrott's negligent driving, the car left the road and turned over. Plaintiffs were injured.
The policy of insurance covering the car had a restrictive endorsement which read:
'It is hereby understood and agreed that the described vehicle will not be operated by any member of any of the military or naval forces of the United States or of any other country, except the Named Insured herein and it is further agreed that no coverage shall be afforded while the described vehicle is being operated by any such operator.'
The defendant company refused to defend the suit by plaintiffs against defendants-insureds on the ground that the driver Parrott was a member of the military services of the United States and that therefore, the injuries were not covered by the policy. They raise the same defense in the present suit to collect on the judgment obtained against their insured. Plaintiffs claim the restrictive endorsement is not binding on them because of certain provisions of the Financial Responsibility Law, A.R.S. § 28-1101 et seq. The policy of insurance provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The Financial Responsibility Law defines motor vehicle liability policy as follows:
'A. A 'motor vehicle liability policy' as the term is used in this chapter means an owner's or an operator's policy of liability insurance, certified as provided in § 28-1168 or § 28-1169 as proof of financial responsibility, and issued, except as otherwise provided in § 28-1169, by an insurance carrier duly authorized to transact business in this state, to or for the benefit of the person named therein as insured.
* * *
* * *
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the trade, this provision is referred to as the 'omnibus clause.' If this provision has been made a part of the policy either by the policy provision or by operation of law, the defendant company is liable to the injured plaintiffs.
The California Supreme Court, in Wildman v. Government Employees' Ins. Co., 48 Cal.2d 31, 39, 307 P.2d 359, 364, refused to allow an insurance company to set up a restrictive endorsement as a defense and applied an omnibus clause substantially similar to A.R.S. § 28-1170, subd. B(2), as follows:
"It appears that section 415 must be made a part of every policy of insurance issued by an insurer since the public policy of this state is to make owners of motor vehicles financially responsible to those injured by them in the operation of such vehicles."
And, again:
'* * * said sections were intended by the Legislature to be, and are, a part of every policy of motor vehicle liability insurance issued by an insurance carrier authorized to do business in this state.' 48 Cal.2d at 40, 307 P.2d at 365.
And the California District Court of Appeals applied the principle announced in the Wildman case where an insurance company attempted to escape liability because of the existence of the same military exclusion endorsement which is the issue in this suit. Wheeling v. Financial Indemnity Company, 201 Cal.App.2d 36, 19 Cal.Rptr. 879, 882.
The defendant company, however, has raised a highly technical defense for which they cite much authority and which they claim distinguishes this case from the California cases. The argument goes as follows:
1. Section 28-1170, A.R.S., provides, in applicable part:
"A motor vehicle liability policy' * * * means an owner's or operator's policy of liability insurance, certified as provided in § 28-1168 or § 28-1169 as proof of financial responsibility * * *' 1 (Emphasis supplied.)
2. A 'motor vehicle liability policy' is a term of art and has a different meaning from 'automobile liability policy' or 'policy of insurance.'
3. A 'motor vehicle liability policy' is only one which has been 'certified' and thus the term can...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weekes v. Atlantic National Ins. Co., 20245.
...has a Financial Responsibility law that appears to invalidate the exclusion. In the light of the decision in Jenkins v. Mayflower Ins. Exch., 1963, 93 Ariz. 287, 380 P.2d 145, we think that the Arizona courts would strike down the exclusion. Paragraph 2-A of the judgment is 3. The limits of......
-
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Thompson
...Hughes, 236 N.W.2d at 885 (citing Wildman v. Gov't Employees' Ins. Co., 48 Cal.2d 31, 307 P.2d 359 (1957); Jenkins v. Mayflower Ins. Exch., 93 Ariz. 287, 380 P.2d 145 (1963)). We summarized the coverage required, "[S]uch coverage must insure all permissive operators against loss for liabili......
-
Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. Wagner
...to every policy. Sec. 11580 West's Annot. Calif.Insurance Code, Chap. 1259, Stats. 1963, p. 2780. 19 See Jenkins v. Mayflower Insurance Exchange, 93 Ariz. 287, 380 P.2d 145, at p. 147, where the Arizona court "Where the basis upon which this act has been declared constitutional is, `prevent......
-
Perez v. Campbell
...44, 47, 424 P.2d 172, 175 (1967); Hastings v. Thurston, 100 Ariz. 302, 306, 413 P.2d 767, 770 (1966); Jenkins v. Mayflower Ins. Exchange, 93 Ariz. 287, 290, 380 P.2d 145, 147 (1963), and we are bound by its rulings. See, e.g., General Trading Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 322 U.S. 335, 337, 64 S......