Molzahn v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., 85-69.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-69.,85-69. |
| Parties | Elaine J. MOLZAHN, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
William H. Stowell, Phillipsburg, Kan., for appellant.
J. Eugene Balloun, Great Bend, Kan., for appellee.
Before LEWIS and HILL, Circuit Judges, and LANGLEY, District Judge.
This case is here on appeal from an order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee.
The plaintiff-appellant's husband, while driving a commercial vehicle in the course of his employment, was involved in a one vehicle accident in which he received bodily injuries that resulted in his death. At the time, there was in force an automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant to the deceased and his wife, the plaintiff, affording death benefits for the accidental death of either. Excluded from the coverage, however, was bodily injury "sustained in the course of his occupation by any person while engaged (1) in duties incident to the operation * * * of a commercial automobile * * *", and "bodily injury" by policy definition included "death at any time resulting therefrom". Because of this provision, the insurance company refused to pay and this suit resulted.
The action was originally filed in the District Court of Phillips County, Kansas, and was for the face amount of the policy, $10,000.00, and for costs and attorneys fees. The case was removed by the defendant to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, and no question of jurisdiction has been raised. It is agreed that there was diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount sued for, together with attorneys fees authorized in suits of this character by the Kansas statutes, makes the amount in controversy sufficient for federal jurisdiction. Missouri State Life Insurance Company v. Jones, 290 U.S. 199, 54 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed. 267. The only issue, therefore, is whether or not the exclusionary provisions of the policy are explicit enough to be effective.
We have examined the record and conclude that for the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion of the District Court, 308 F.Supp. 1144, no coverage was afforded under the policy in the circumstances here involved.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Pittsburg, Kan.
...Co., 433 F.2d 1051, 1054 (10th Cir.1970); Molzahn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 308 F.Supp. 1144, 1145 (D.Kan.1968), aff'd, 422 F.2d 1321 (10th Cir.1970); Crawford v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 245 Kan. 724, 729, 783 P.2d 900, 904 (1989). In determining the intention of the parties, t......
-
Plus System, Inc. v. New England Network, Inc.
...State Life Insurance Co. et al v. Jones, 290 U.S. 199, 202, 54 S.Ct. 133, 133-34, 78 L.Ed. 267 (1933); Molzahn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 422 F.2d 1321, 1322 (10th Cir. 1970); 14A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3712 at 176-77 (2d. ed. 1985) ("The law is now......
-
Wise v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company
...unambiguous language. See Molzahn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 308 F. Supp. 1144, 1146 (D.C.Kan. 1968), aff'd, 422 F.2d 1321 (10th Cir.1970); Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 204 Kan. 487, 464 P.2d 253, 256 (1970). We cannot, however, agree with Westcheste......
-
Hughes v. EZ Serve Petroleum Marketing Co., 95-C-1240-H.
...right to such fees. See Missouri State Life Ins. v. Jones, 290 U.S. 199, 54 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed. 267 (1933); Molzahn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 422 F.2d 1321 (10th Cir.1970). Further, the Court accepts Defendant's statement that, if successful, Plaintiffs are legally entitled to attorney......