Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc. v. U.S. Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 4663,4663 |
| Citation | 199 Va. 221,98 S.E.2d 702 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE MASON AND DIXON LINES, INC. v. UNITED STATES CASUALTY COMPANY. Record |
Archibald A. Campbell (Campbell & Campbell, on brief), for the plaintiff in error.
James C. Turk (Ted Dalton; Dalton, Poff & Turk, on brief), for the defendant in error.
This action at law was instituted by The Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. against United States Casualty Company, insurer, under § 38.1-380, Code 1950, and Ralph Cline, insured, and a judgment sought against United States Casualty Company, upon an unpaid judgment theretofore awarded The Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. against Ralph Cline as a result of a collision between their vehicles.
Cline was not made a party to this appeal and thus the other two parties will be at times referred to as plaintiff and defendant in accordance with their respective positions in the trial court.
Defendant, in its answer and grounds of defense to the motion for judgment, admitted among other facts, that Cline was involved in a collision with plaintiff's truck on November 22, 1952. Defendant alleged that the policy of insurance it held on Cline's car provided: 'When an accident occurs written notice shall be given by or on behalf of the insured to the company or any of its authorized agents as soon as practicable. ' It was further alleged that the provision was a reasonable and valid condition and was necessary to a proper fulfillment of the contract; that no notice of the collision was given to defendant until May 6, 1953, and that such failure and refusal to give the required notice constituted a breach of the contract which relieved defendant from liability for any sum in addition to the $1,000 paid, there being no policy defense for such amount.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, defendant moved to strike on the grounds that the evidence did not show that Cline had complied with the terms of the insurance contract and that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict. Over the objection of plaintiff the court sustained the motion. The jury returned their verdict for defendant and judgment was entered thereon. We granted plaintiff an appeal as to defendant, United States Casualty Company.
Since the trial court struck plaintiff's evidence, its sufficiency to sustain a recovery is challenged and we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Pike v. Eubank, 197 Va. 692, 698, 90 S.E.2d 821; 7 M.J., Evidence, § 297, p. 693.
The only witness to testify at the trial was Ralph Cline whose evidence is summarized below.
On or before July 18, 1952, Cline went to the offices of Heuser Insurance Agency in Wytheville to purchase liability insurance on his automobile. He consulted with Fred M. Heuser, manager of the agency, and made application for an assigned risk policy, which included $5,000 for property damage. He paid him the required premium and was told that the insurance was effective immediately. Cline knew that the application had to be sent to Richmond in order to have the policy written. In due course he received the policy executed by defendant, dated July 18, 1952.
While operating his car on November 22, 1952, Cline collided with plaintiff's truck on U.S. Highway 11 in Wythe County and received severe injuries. He sustained a fractured skull, broken cheekbone, broken collarbone, broken nose, broken jawbone, broken ribs, fractured back, broken ankle and his heart was knocked 'out of socket.' He also received numerous cuts and bruises. He was unconscious for two weeks and remained in the hospital for approximately six weeks. One of his legs was placed in a cast from his knee down and it was not removed until eight weeks after he left the hospital. Cline stated he had headaches and 'couldn't keep anything together any length of time.'
On January 29, 1953, he appeared before the Trial Justice Court of Wythe County in response to a warrant charging him with reckless driving. After the trial he received a letter from counsel for plaintiff informing him that defendant had no knowledge of the accident. He stated that after receiving this information he went within two days from the date of the trial justice hearing to Heuser's office and reported in detail the accident to him and Heuser 'wrote it down.' The cast at the time was on his leg and he managed to 'wiggle' up the steps to Heuser's office, which was on the second floor.
On cross examination, he was exhibited a letter, dated May 4, 1953, addressed to defendant in New York City, signed Heuser Insurance Agency, Fred M. Heuser. The body of the letter follows:
'Your records will indicate that under date of July 18, 1952, you issued an assigned risk policy in the name of Ralph Cline, of Rural Retreat, Virginia, under policy #AP-042735.
When asked if the letter wasn't written at the time he reported the accident, Cline replied 'I don't recall it at that time. ' He was then asked if it was not the approximate time he was there to give Heuser the first information concerning the accident. His response was 'I think that is a little far off from the date that I was up there.'
Plaintiff sued Cline in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia for damages to its truck and judgment was rendered on October 28, 1954 for the sum of $3,094.50 with interest from date until paid and costs. Defendant paid $1,000 on the judgment since there was no policy defense as to the $1,000 limit (§ 46-498 (6), Code 1950). Plaintiff brought this action to recover the balance of $2,094.50.
The ultimate and controlling questions are whether or not this evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Overstreet
...determination of whether notice was given ... as soon as practicable is usually a question for the jury." Mason & Dixon, Inc. v. Casualty Co., 199 Va. 221, 98 S.E.2d 702, 705 (1957) (citing Shipp v. Connecticut Indem. Co., 194 Va. 249, 72 S.E.2d 343 (1952)); see also Atlas Ins. Co. v. Chapm......
-
Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Everette, Action No. 4:94cv00090.
...and when reasonable minds should not differ on the proper inferences deductible from the facts. Mason & Dixon Lines v. United States Casualty Co., 199 Va. 221, 225, 98 S.E.2d 702, 705 (1957); see Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Accident & Casualty Ins. Co., 796 F.Supp. 925 (W.D.Va.1992); State Farm Mut......
-
Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
...165 Va. 583, 183 S.E. 508; Yanago v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 164 Va. 258, 178 S.E. 904; cf. Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. v. United States Casualty Co., 199 Va. 221, 98 S.E. 2d 702; Temple v. Virginia Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 181 Va. 561, 25 S.E.2d 268; Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 138 Va. 17......
-
Smith v. Grenadier
...inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to him. Pike v. Eubank, 197 Va. 692, 698, 90 S.E.2d 821; Mason and Dixon, inc. v. Casualty Co., 199 Va. 221, 222, 98 S.E.2d 702. In 10 M.J., Joint Adventures, § 2, p. 695, it is '* * * A joint adventure exists when two or more persons combine......