Johnston v. Maryland Cas. Co., 29321.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1945 |
| Docket Number | 29321. |
| Parties | JOHNSTON v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Action by F. G. Johnston, by Ada B. Johnston, his guardian ad litem and Ada B. Johnston, against Maryland Casualty Company on an automobile accident policy. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; James T Lawler, judge.
Eggerman Rosling & Williams, of Seattle, for appellant.
Kumm & Hatch, of Seattle, for respondents.
Plaintiff brought an action on his insurance policy to recover benefits for a loss sustained thereunder. From a verdict of the jury, the defendant appeals.
On January 27, 1942, respondent, F. G. Johnston, driving his Dodge pickup on his way home from work in Seattle, collided head on with a Packard coupe, being operated on the same street and going in the opposite direction.
Johnston's Dodge pickup may be described as a model WC one-half-ton express body truck on a 116 inch wheel base. It differs from a Dodge passenger automobile in that it has a heavier motor, heavier springs, heavier frame, different wheel base, and a chassis entirely different from the passenger car chassis. There is room in the cab for a driver and a passenger, but there are no seats in the rear, which is a box for the carrying and delivery of merchandise, tools, or goods of any kind. The motor number was T-125-33791. The 'T' stands for truck. It carried a one-half-ton express truck. It carried a truck license at the time of the accident.
On December 17, 1941, the defendant, appellant here, issued plaintiff, respondent here, its automobile accident policy providing 'indemnity for loss of life, limb, sight and other losses caused by automobile accident to the extent herein limited and provided.' This policy was in effect at the time of the accident. While the policy provided indemnity for various losses, recovery is sought only for the sum of five hundred dollars specified in the policy as the indemnity for hospital, nurses, medical, and surgical expense.
The policy insured respondent:
The policy defined the term 'passenger automobile' as follows:
It is the contention of the respondent that he has a right to recover under both clauses one and five of the policy. The appellant denies that he has a right to recover under either one.
Respondent's right to recover under clause one depends upon the nature of his vehicle. It must be a private passenger automobile, which is defined in the policy in clause C as not including a truck or other automobile made or altered to carry merchandise tools, or goods of any kind. From an examination of a picture of the vehicle in evidence, it is manifestly not a private passenger automobile as defined in the policy. The respondent contends that the word 'automobile' is a generic term embracing trucks, touring cars, sedans, pickups, and all varieties of rapidly moving four-wheel vehicles. However, none of the cases cited upon which he relies construed the meaning of 'passenger automobile' where the same had been defined in the terms used in the policy in question, and we therefore think that the definition here involved cannot be reasonably interpreted as having its generic meaning because of the definition in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington Local Lodge No. 104 of International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders & Helpers of America v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders & Helpers of America
... ... A.L.R. 531, and Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v ... Willrich, 13 Wash.2d 263, 124 P.2d 950, ... given to any detached portion. Johnston v. Maryland Cas ... Co., 22 Wash.2d 305, 155 P.2d ... ...
-
Bates v. United Sec. Ins. Co.
...was riding constituted striking her by automobile the New Jersey Court considered and specifically rejected Johnston v. Maryland Casualty Co., 22 Wash.2d 305, 155 P.2d 806, 807, relied on by defendant here, and cited in support Barnes v. Great American Indemnity Co., 60 Ohio App. 114, 19 N.......
-
Easley v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J.
...in the decided minority and generally not very recently decided. The apparently leading case for this view, Johnston v. Maryland Casualty Co., 22 Wash.2d 305, 155 P.2d 806 (1945) has been specifically criticized in many jurisdictions (including Louisiana in Blanchard ) and we decline to fol......
-
Thomas v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Idaho
...held that the pickup truck was not an automobile 'of the pleasure car type.' Washington's Supreme Court, in Johnston v. Maryland Casualty Co., 22 Wash.2d 305, 155 P.2d 806, 807, ruled that a one and a half ton pickup truck was not a private passenger automobile within the meaning of an auto......