Martinez v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Decision Date | 16 March 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
Parties | Antonio O. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., a corporation, Appellee. 2675. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Miller, Pitt & Feldman, P. C. by Stanley G. Feldman, Hirsh & Shiner, P. C. by James A. Shiner, Tucson, for appellant.
Everett, Bury & Moeller, P. C. by David C. Bury, Tucson, for appellee.
The issue in this case is whether the "cross employee" exclusion in an automobile liability insurance policy violates the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act. The trial court found that it does not, and entered summary judgment for the insurer. We agree and affirm.
Appellant Antonio O. Martinez was awarded damages for personal injuries in an action against the personal representative of Harold Brasfield arising out of an accident that occurred while Martinez and Brasfield were acting within the scope and course of their common employment. Martinez was a passenger and Brasfield the driver of an automobile owned by their employer, William J. Flanagan, doing business as Bill Flanagan Motors. After entry of the personal injury judgment, Martinez commenced an action for declaratory judgment against United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) as insurer and Flanagan as the named insured on a comprehensive general liability policy including garage liability insurance, seeking a determination that the policy covered Brasfield's operation of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Portions of the policy pertaining to the "automobile hazard" include:
Under its definition of "PERSONS INSURED" the policy provides further:
The parties agree that neither the exclusion nor restriction on the definition of persons insured is effective unless authorized by A.R.S. § 28-1170, subsec. E., which provides:
"The motor vehicle liability policy need not insure liability under any workmen's compensation law nor liability on account of bodily injury to or death of an employee of the insured while engaged in the employment, * * * of the insured, * * *."
Martinez concedes that a "cross employee" exclusion similar in all material respects to the exclusion in the USF&G policy was held effective in Limon v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 11 Ariz.App. 459, 465 P.2d 596 (1970), but contends that Limon was overruled by the supreme court in Farmers Insurance Group v. Home Indemnity Co., 108 Ariz. 126, 493 P.2d 909 (1972), construing the same exclusion. Our reading of the latter opinion compels a contrary conclusion. After holding that the exclusion could not be applied to the permissive insured for the injury or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Renova
... ... 9 ¶16 Martinez v. U.S. Fid. and Guar. , 119 Ariz. 403, 581 P.2d 248 (App. 1978) is ... These cases simply do not address the situation before us" and thus we cannot ignore our supreme court's analysis in Farmers. \xC2" ... ...
-
Hagen v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Co.
...from coverage for employees of the named insured when the injured party is also an employee. See Martinez v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 119 Ariz. 403, 581 P.2d 248 (App.1978); Limon v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 11 Ariz.App. 459, 465 P.2d 596 (1970). Such exclusions do not viol......
-
Cota v. Industrial Indem. Co.
...clauses. See Atkins v. Pacific Indemnity Ins. Group, 125 Ariz. 46, 607 P.2d 29 (App.1980); Martinez v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 119 Ariz. 403, 581 P.2d 248 (App.1978). In these cases, as in the present case, an employee had asserted a negligence claim against a co-employee and......
-
Zink v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
... ... Inc., 370 So.2d 1267, 1269 (La.Ct.App.1979) ("fellow employee"); Martinez v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 119 Ariz. 403, 581 P.2d 248, 249 ... 701, 71 S.W.2d 803 (1934). Employers cites us to no authority in this or any other state which supports its position ... ...