Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 41513
| Decision Date | 13 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41513,41513 |
| Citation | 121 So.2d 125,239 Miss. 130 |
| Parties | George MOORE v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphis, for appellant.
Shumate & Eppes, Meridian, for appellee.
This is a suit by George Moore, appellant, to recover medical payments on an automobile liability policy issued to him by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in Louisiana. The defendant insurance company was granted a directed verdict, and upon the entry of judgment for the insurance company, Moore appealed.
The policy in question is a family automobile liability policy and was issued to appellant as the insured. It described and covered a Chevrolet automobile owned by insured. The pertinent parts of the policy are as follows:
'Part II--Expenses for Medical Services
'Coverage C--Medical payments. To pay all reasonable expenses incurred within one year from the date of accident for necessary medical, surgical, X-ray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral services:
'Division 1. To or for the named insured and each relative who sustains bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called 'Bodily injury,' caused by accident, while occupying or through being struck by an automobile; * * *
* * *
* * *
'(b) sustained by the named insured or a relative (1) while occupying an automobile owned by or furnished for the regular use of either the named insured or any relative, other than an automobile defined herein as an 'owned automobile' or * * *.'
For some two years prior to the accident later mentioned, insured was employed by Wade Tung Oil Company which owned some ten trucks. Insured drove trucks for his employer and had other duties, including operating a bulldozer, mechanical, tractor, and some carpenter work. He drove trucks for his employer two or three times a week; sometimes he would haul machinery, and sometimes he would make trips to haul tung nuts. He was not assigned any particular truck the two or three trips a week he would make driving trucks. When he was not driving trucks, he would at times work on a truck as a helper.
While the aforesaid policy was in force, and on March 8, 1959, insured drove one of his employer's trucks from his place of employment at Bogalusa, Louisiana to Richton, Mississippi, for the purpose of hauling a load of tung nuts. The truck he was driving was a tractor-trailer unit and while in the trailer he slipped and fell. The injuries he received resulted in appellant incurring medical bills exceeding $500, the policy limit for medical payments.
The insured was the only witness and the facts stated are undisputed.
The question is whether the truck in which insured was insured. If it was, for the regular use' of insured. If it was, the insurer is not liable. The trial judge directed a verdict for the insurer on the ground that the truck was furnished for the regular use of insured and the medical payments coverage was excluded under the clear and unambiguous terms of the exclusionary clause.
The medical payment coverage is extended 'To or for the named insured. * * * while occupying or through being struck by an automobile. * * *' If the policy had not contained an exclusion, it would be immaterial as to what automobile the insured was occupying when he sustained the injury. The exclusion expressly provides that the policy does not apply under Part II () if the injury is sustained while occupying an automobile (1) owned by insured (or any relative), or (2) furnished for regular use of the insured (or any relative), other than the automobile defined in the policy as an owned automobile. The insuring plan is to extend to the insured or any relative (member of household) the medical payments coverage while the insured or relative is occupying automobiles other than the one defined in the policy if the other automobile is not owned by or furnished for the regular use of the named insured or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepherd v. Fregozo
...insured "for regular use" in either event. We know of no authority holding to the contrary. Moore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 239 Miss. 130, 121 So.2d 125, 126-27 (1960). While Tennessee courts have not dealt specifically with a case involving the "regular use" exclusion as it......
-
Ricci v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...Co., 139 So.2d 785 (La.App.1962); Sumrall v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 124 So.2d 168 (La.App.1960); Moore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 239 Miss. 130, 121 So.2d 125 (1960). Other courts have found that such language is ambiguous. See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hyde, 232 Ark. ......
-
Galvin v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.
...879, 881-884 (Iowa 1979); Winterwerp v. Allstate Ins. Co., 277 Md. 714, 716-721, 357 A.2d 350 (1976); Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 239 Miss. 130, 133-135, 121 So.2d 125 (1960); Davy v. Merchants Mut. Cas. Co., 97 N.H. 236, 238-239, 85 A.2d 388 (1952); Venters v. Selected Risks I......
-
Sumrall v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...that brings the exclusionary clause into operation. Cited in support of this position is the case of Moore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Miss., 121 So.2d 125. That case is distinguishable from the instant case upon the facts. In that case the employer furnished, for the regular ......