Joslin v. Hudson Casualty Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 07 March 1930
• Docket Number: Nos. 51, 52.,s. 51, 52.
• Citation: Joslin v. Hudson Cas. Ins. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 195, 149 A. 262 (N.J. 1930)
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: EDWARD JOSLIN, BY NEXT FRIEND, PLAINTIFF, v. HUDSON CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT. ROBERT CLAYTON, BY NEXT FRIEND, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. HUDSON CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT

149 A. 262

JOSLIN

v. HUDSON CASUALTY INS. CO.

CLAYTON et al

v. SAME.

Nos. 51, 52.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 7, 1930.

Actions by Edward Joslin, by next friend, and by Robert Clayton, by next friend, and others, against the Hudson Casualty Insurance Company. Verdict for plaintiffs. On defendant's rules to show cause.

Rules discharged.

Argued January term, 1930, before PARKER, BLACK, and BODINE, JJ.

Burton A. Gaskill, of Mays Landing, for plaintiffs.

Walter Hanstein, of Atlantic City, for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

The suits are based on the so-called "omnibus clause" of defendant's accident liability policy in favor of one Antonio Pitale as owner of an automobile described in the policy. The evidence indicates, apparently without dispute, that, while the automobile was being operated by Charles Pitale, son of the named assured, with the permission of the latter, there was an accident in which the several plaintiffs were injured, that they brought suits and recovered judgments against Charles Pitale, and, failing to collect by execution against him, sued the present defendant in reliance on the omnibus coverage clause just mentioned, and had verdicts which are now before us on these rules to show cause. The claims seemed regular enough on the face of things, with one or two exceptions to be considered in a moment; but the main ground of defense goes below the surface, and in particular attacks the insurance policy as fraudulent as against the company, in that the real owner of the car was not Anthony but Charles: and also that Anthony, in taking out the policy, had warranted falsely that no policy issued to him on an automobile had been refused or canceled for three years next preceding.

Three reasons are assigned: That the verdicts were against the weight of evidence, and this involves the matters of fraud and misrepresentation; that the court excluded testimony of the witness Ranere; and that the court received certain testimony of the witness Lola Burdick. This last will be considered in connection with weight of evidence, but the point relating to the Ranere testimony may well be disposed of at this time. It was sought to show that, after the accident, Charles had bought a new car and placed it in the name of his sister Annie. The court excluded this testimony, and properly so. The theory of the offer was that it would corroborate the claim that Charles was the real owner of the car that was in the accident; but, on well-settled...