Mission Ins. Co. v. Ward, 57937
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMAN |
| Citation | 487 S.W.2d 449 |
| Parties | MISSION INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent, v. Mark S. WARD et al., Defendants, Mark S. Ward and Clifford Ward, Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 57937,57937 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1972 |
Page 449
v.
Mark S. WARD et al., Defendants,
Mark S. Ward and Clifford Ward, Appellants.
Paul E. Kovacs, Carter, Brinker & Doyen, Clayton, for respondent, Mission Ins. Co.
Klutho & Cody, Edward C. Cody, St. Louis, for appellants.
HOLMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff, Mission Insurance Company, filed this suit seeking a declaratory judgment concerning its obligations under a
Page 450
policy of automobile liability insurance issued to Seth A. Ward. It alleged that it was not obligated to defend or to pay any judgment that might be rendered in a suit that had been filed against Seth by his grandson, Mark S. Ward, and Mark's father Clifford. A trial before the court resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Mark and Clifford appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District. That court, with three judges concurring and two dissenting, adopted an opinion reversing the trial court's judgment. Upon Mission's application, we ordered the case transferred to this court. It will be determined here 'the same as on original appeal.' Mo.Const. Art. V, § 10, V.A.M.S.On August 15, 1969, Mission issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to Seth A. Ward which contained the following exclusion clause: 'This policy does not apply: (a) under coverage A, to the liability of any insured for bodily injury to (1) the named insured, (2) any relative of the named insured who is a member of the named insured's household.'
On May 22, 1970, Seth, at Clifford's request, drove his (insured) automobile to the school Mark attended in order to pick up Mark and bring him home. After Mark entered the car it was involved in a one-car collision when it struck a bridge abutment and Mark was severely injured. As heretofore stated, Mark and Clifford filed suit against Seth to recover damages resulting from the injuries Mark sustained and this declaratory judgment action followed. Mission contends that its policy is not applicable to Mark's suit because of the quoted exclusion clause and the alleged fact that Mark and Clifford, relatives of Seth, were 'member(s) of the named insured's household.' The trial court's findings, upon which judgment was entered, was that 'Mark Ward and Clifford Ward were members of the insured's household at time of accident. The policy of insurance issued by plaintiff is inapplicable to personal injury action filed by Mark Ward and Clifford Ward against Seth Ward.'
Seth A. Ward, age 80, testified that he had lived with his wife in a house at 310 Harrison for 35 years; that it was a six-room house with one kitchen, one refrigerator, one bathroom, and one mailbox; that in March 1970 Clifford had stored his furniture and he and Mark moved in with them temporarily; that Clifford bought his own groceries and kept them in the refrigerator but anyone would get anything he wanted from the refrigerator; that Clifford did most of the cooking but they all seldom ate together, although when Clifford was not there Mark would eat with him and his wife; that they all shared the bathroom and kitchen; that Clifford moved in with them because the rent where he was living was too high, but that he was regularly seeking living quarters elsewhere. This witness further testified that the house was not divided into apartments but that Clifford and Mark occupied a bedroom on the second floor and had their own TV set; that Clifford paid rent to his mother.
Clifford Ward testified that his wife had died about 18 months before he moved in with his father; that after her death he moved to a house on Gist Road where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macalco, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., Nos. 9701
...of consequence in the testimony, and where the evidence is in writing and consists of documents. Mission Insurance Company v. Ward, 487 S.W.2d 449, 451(2) (Mo. banc 1972); Delany v. St. Louis Union Trust Company, 518 S.W.2d 704, 709(3) Omitting citations, we quote what Swofford, J., had to ......
-
Tirona v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 92-00347 BMK.
...are stored; Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Brinkley, 182 Ga.App. 273, 355 S.E.2d 767, 768 (1987); Mission Insurance Co. v. Ward, 487 S.W.2d 449, 450 (Mo. 1972); (3) where the claimant socializes; Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. v. State Farm, 377 Pa.Super. 171, 546 A.2d 1212, 1215 (1988); Row v......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Havner, No. WD 61014.
...attention toward a common goal consisting of their mutual interest and happiness.3 690 S.W.2d at 816. See also Mission Ins. Co. v. Ward, 487 S.W.2d 449, 451-52 (Mo. banc 1972); Giokaris v. Kincaid, 331 S.W.2d 633, 640 "Curtilage" is unclear. Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin, 150 F.3......
-
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Hunt, No. 10566
...exclusion or breach of condition subsequent, the burden of proof on such issues is upon the insurer. Mission Insurance Company v. Ward, 487 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. banc 1972); McNeal v. Manchester Ins. & Indem. Co., 540 S.W.2d 113 (Mo.App.1976); Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Stallings, 523 S......
-
Macalco, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., Nos. 9701
...of consequence in the testimony, and where the evidence is in writing and consists of documents. Mission Insurance Company v. Ward, 487 S.W.2d 449, 451(2) (Mo. banc 1972); Delany v. St. Louis Union Trust Company, 518 S.W.2d 704, 709(3) Omitting citations, we quote what Swofford, J., had to ......
-
Tirona v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 92-00347 BMK.
...are stored; Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Brinkley, 182 Ga.App. 273, 355 S.E.2d 767, 768 (1987); Mission Insurance Co. v. Ward, 487 S.W.2d 449, 450 (Mo. 1972); (3) where the claimant socializes; Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. v. State Farm, 377 Pa.Super. 171, 546 A.2d 1212, 1215 (1988); Row v......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Havner, No. WD 61014.
...attention toward a common goal consisting of their mutual interest and happiness.3 690 S.W.2d at 816. See also Mission Ins. Co. v. Ward, 487 S.W.2d 449, 451-52 (Mo. banc 1972); Giokaris v. Kincaid, 331 S.W.2d 633, 640 "Curtilage" is unclear. Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin, 150 F.3......
-
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Hunt, No. 10566
...exclusion or breach of condition subsequent, the burden of proof on such issues is upon the insurer. Mission Insurance Company v. Ward, 487 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. banc 1972); McNeal v. Manchester Ins. & Indem. Co., 540 S.W.2d 113 (Mo.App.1976); Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Stallings, 523 S......