Manthey v. American Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1941
• Citation: 18 A.2d 397,127 Conn. 516
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MANTHEY v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. et al.

18 A.2d 397

127 Conn. 516

MANTHEY v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 7, 1941

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas for the Judicial District of Waterbury, A. S. Borden, Acting Judge.

Action by John Manthey against the American Automobile Insurance Company and others to recover under policies of automobile liability insurance the amount of judgments rendered against the plaintiff, brought to the Court of Common Pleas and tried to the court. From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Where automobile liability policies covered commercial use of truck which at the time of accident in which injuries were sustained by parties who obtained judgments against insured was being driven by a minor without insured's permission and insured relied solely on conclusiveness of judgments rendered against him in actions for injuries to show liability of insurers and did not show that coverage existed policies afforded insured no more protection than if someone had stolen automobile and inflicted injury and insured could not recover under policies amount of judgments recovered against him.

Vincent A. Miller, of Waterbury, for appellant.

Harrison D. Schofield, of Hartford, for appellees.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS JJ.

JENNINGS, Judge.

The plaintiff paid three judgments, based on the negligent operation of an automobile owned by him and insured by the defendants. He brought this action to recover these sums from the defendants. The latter claim that the policies do not cover the loss.

The finding discloses the following facts essential to the decisive issues of law: The defendant companies insured the plaintiff, a dairy farmer, against liability incurred in the operation of his pleasure and commercial automobiles. Among the latter was a Dodge truck. This truck was involved in an accident while being driven by the plaintiff's nephew. He had taken the truck, in the absence of the plaintiff and without his permission, to deliver a chicken to a customer for his mother who operated a farm some distance from that of the plaintiff. The accident occurred after the chicken was delivered and paid for when he was on his way back to give the money to his mother. As a result, suits were brought against the plaintiff by two injured persons on the theory that this truck was being operated negligently by his agent, with his permission and on his business, and the court which tried these cases so found. The defendants first refused to defend but later did so upon an express understanding that in doing so they did not waive their right to claim that they were not liable under the policy. The trial resulted in judgments for the injured persons which the plaintiff paid. After these judgments were paid, another action was instituted by a new plaintiff for damages arising out of the same accident. The defendants refused to defend, claiming there was no coverage under the policy. The action was defended and settled by counsel employed by the defendants in that action.

On these facts, the trial court concluded that the driver of the truck was using it without permission and on business not connected with that of the plaintiff. This conclusion and the facts on which it was based were attacked by the assignments of error. The facts were found and the conclusion was reached on conflicting evidence and must stand. Although the finding was disputed in many respects, none of the other facts summarized above were questioned. The attacks on the finding resulted in the main from the use of the transcript of evidence in the principal case as a basis for many of the facts found. It was offered solely on the question of credibility, an important, if not decisive, issue in the case. Its use in making up the finding was improper and resulted in an unnecessarily complicated record.

Excerpts from the policy read as follows: ‘ To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages, * * * caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile.’

‘ V. * * * This policy applies only * * * while the automobile is * * * owned, maintained and used for the purposes stated as applicable thereto in the declaration.’

The occupation of the insured is described as that of a dairy...