Moore v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1952 |
| Citation | 246 S.W.2d 960,29 Beeler 519,193 Tenn. 519 |
| Parties | MOORE v. LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. 29 Beeler 519, 193 Tenn. 519, 246 S.W.2d 960 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Cummings & Melton, Woodbury, Albert Williams, Kenneth Harwell and Williams, Cummings & West, all of Nashville, for appellant.
William J. Harbison and Trabue & Sturdivant, all of Nashville, for appellee.
Certiorari has been granted and the case argued.
There was a verdict in the trial court in favor of the plaintiff against Harold Simmons for the wrongful killing of plaintiff's intestate by an automobile truck operated by Simmons.
Plaintiff instituted this suit on the theory that Simmons was insured under the terms of an automobile liability insurance policy issued by the defendant insurance company covering the truck involved in the accident which was fatal to William Stanton Moore.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the suit. The question presented is: Was evidence introduced which tended to show the truck was actually used at the time of the fatal accident with the permission of the named insured within the meaning of the policy?
The truck involved was owned by Motorent, Inc., leased by the owner to General Products Division of General Shoe Corporation and was covered by an automobile liability insurance policy issued by defendant in force at the time of the accident, which provided: 'The unqualified word 'insured' includes the named insured and except where specifically stated, to the contrary, also includes, under division 1 and 2 of the Definition of Hazards, any person while using the automobile and any person or organization legally responsible for the use thereof, provided the actual use of the automobile is with the permission of the named insured.'
General Products stored this truck each night with the owner. During the period of the lease contract, General Products had the exclusive right to use the truck.
Harold Simmons was a porter at the business place of General Products. He was not a truck driver but he had been permitted to drive the truck to the business place of the owner two or three times for the purpose of leaving it overnight. On the evening of November 7, 1947, General Products gave Simmons permission to take the truck out that night for the purpose of hauling a small amount of furniture of his sister-in-law from one point in the city of Nashville to another point in the city, about two miles. Simmons went to Motorent, Inc., and represented that the superintendent of General Products had given him permission to use the truck to move the furniture. The superintendent denied giving this permission. Simmons signed for the truck when he took it out.
The possession of the truck by Simmons was for a definite purpose--to haul the furniture from one point to another in the city of Nashville. He had no general custody of the truck and no permission to use it for general purposes.
Instead of hauling the furniture, he picked up a friend of his, drove out to Murfreesboro, some thirty miles from Nashville, drank whiskey and beer and the wreck followed, killing William Moore.
The petition for certiorari attacks the holding of this Court in Hubbard v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Tenn.Sup., 240 S.W.2d 245. This case followed the rule in Romines v. The Preferred Accident Insurance Company of New York, decided by this Court on November 26, 1932, unreported.
These cases hold that where one has only limited permission of the owner to use the car in a specified area for a limited time and particular purpose and does not have general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. Woodby, 12769-12770.
...supra, and Foley v. Tennessee Odin Ins. Co., 193 Tenn. 206, 245 S.W.2d 202, rather than within the ruling in Moore v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 193 Tenn. 519, 246 S.W.2d 960. See also our rulings in Vezolles v. Home Indemnity Co., supra, 38 F.Supp. 455, affirmed 128 F. 2d 257; Preferred Acci......
-
Maryland Casualty Company v. Williams
...244 F.2d 333 (4th Cir. 1957); Branch v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 198 F.2d 1007 (6th Cir. 1952); Moore v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 193 Tenn. 519, 246 S.W.2d 960 (1952);9 Foley v. Tennessee Odin Ins. Co., 193 Tenn. 206, 245 S.W.2d 202 (1951), and cases cited On the other hand, T......
-
Mt. Beacon Insurance Company v. Williams
...192 Tenn. 210, 240 S.W.2d 245 (1951); Foley v. Tennessee Odin Ins. Co., 193 Tenn. 206, 245 S.W.2d 202 (1951); Moore v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 193 Tenn. 519, 246 S.W.2d 960 (1951). See also Young v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Cir., 244 F.2d 333, The other case usually cited as aut......
-
Lambright v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co.
...of National Union's obligation to provide coverage to its named insured, GTE, in the tort action. While both Moore v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 193 Tenn. 519, 246 S.W.2d 960 (1952) and Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Witt, 857 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn.1993) concern insured status of drivers who were dri......