Loffler v. Boston Insurance Co., 1716.
Decision Date | 17 February 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 1716.,1716. |
Citation | 120 A.2d 691 |
Parties | Andreas Lain LOFFLER, as Administrator of the Estate of Cynthia Ann Loftier, Deceased, Appellant, v. BOSTON INSURANCE CO., Inc., a Corporation, Appellee. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Sidney M. Goldstein, Washington, D. C., with whom Joseph D. Bulman and Arthur S. Feld, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant. Samuel Z. Goldman, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.
Richard W. Galiher, Washington, D. C., with whom William E. Stewart, Jr., and Julian H. Reis, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before CAYTON, Chief judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate judges.
Cynthia Loftier was killed in an accident while driving an automobile owned by Ralph Boernstein. At the time Cynthia was "on a date" with Mr. Boernstein's son, Robert, who had his father's permission to use the car for that purpose. Contrary to his father's express instructions that he was not to allow anyone else to drive, Robert permitted Cynthia, an unlicensed operator, to drive while he rode with her in the car. It was while Cynthia was at the wheel that the fatal accident occurred.
This action was brought by Miss Loflier's administrator (her father) to recover the cost of her funeral expenses under a liability policy issued by defendant-insurer to Ralph Boernstein. The insurance company resisted the claim on the ground that since the car was being driven in violation of their policy-holder's express intructions, it was not "being used" with his permission, so as to bring the deceased within the coverage of the policy. The trial court entered judgment for defendant and plaintiff asks us to reverse that decision.
The question presented is whether the automobile was "being used" within the meaning of the "medical payments" provisions of the policy under which the insurer agreed to: "pay all reasonable expenses incurred * * * for * * * funeral services, to * * * each person who sustains bodily injury * * * caused by accident, while in * * * the automobile if the automobile is being used by the named insured or with his permission." [Emphasis supplied.]
Both parties agree that if the car was being used with the insured's permission, plaintiff is entitled to recover. Plaintiff contends the trial court erroneously construed the word "used" to be synonymous with "operated"; and that the word "used" has a much broader meaning and should not have been given such a limited construction.
While there is some conflict among the courts, we think the better rule is that so long as the use as distinguished from the operation is with the permission of the insured, the insurer is liable.
This distinction was carefully noted in Persellin v. State Automobile Ins. Ass'n, 75 N.D. 716, 32 N.W.2d 644, 647, where the court in construing language similar to that here involved said: [Emphasis supplied.]
Again in Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. Zurn, 87 F.2d 988, 989, the Seventh Circuit, speaking through Lindley, J., and referring to the status of the borrower of an automobile held that though he was not driving at the time of the accident, he had permission to "direct the enterprise". The court quoted as follows from Arcara v. Moresse, 258 N.Y. 211, 179 N.E. 389: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baesler v. Globe Indem. Co.
... ... of coverage under the omnibus clause of an automobile liability insurance" policy issued by the defendant company. The facts were stipulated ... \xC2" ... authorized one. Loffler v. Boston Ins. Co., 120 A.2d 691 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App.1956); Brooks v. Delta ... ...
-
Maryland Indem. Ins. Co. v. Kornke
...Union Property & Casualty Co. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 277 F.Supp. 542 (D.C.D.Mont.1967); Loffler v. Boston Insurance Co., 120 A.2d 691 (D.C.Mun.Ct.1956). Without being required to choose between the 'liberal rule' and the moderate or 'minor deviation' rule, supra, we hold t......
-
Helmkamp v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Hays v. Country Mut'l Ins. Co., 28 Ill.2d 601, 192 N.E.2d 855.11 Loffler v. Boston Ins. Co. (Mun.Ct. of App., Dist. of Col.) 120 A.2d 691; Dodson v. Sisco (D.C.Ark.) 134 F.Supp. 313; 160 A.L.R. 1195, 1206; Teague v. Tate, 213 Tenn. 269, 375 S.W.2d 840; Gr......
-
Concord General Mutual Insurance Company v. Hills
...176 Neb. 75, 125 N.W.2d 179 (1963); Brooks v. Delta Fire and Casualty Co., 82 So.2d 55 (La. App.1955); Loffler v. Boston Insurance Co., 120 A.2d 691 (Mun.Ct.App.D.C. 1956). This is not a case where recovery may be allowed because the second permittee was serving some purpose of the first pe......