National Indemnity Co. v. Farmers Home Mutual Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 20 July 1979 |
Citation | 95 Cal.App.3d 102,157 Cal.Rptr. 98 |
Parties | NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. FARMERS HOME MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent. Civ. 54433. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Dunne, Shallcross & Kane by Russell E. Shallcross, Los Angeles, for defendant, appellant and cross-respondent.
Ives, Kirwan & Dibble, and John Brevidoro and Peter M. Fonda, Los Angeles, for plaintiff, respondent and cross-appellant.
In this action for declaratory relief between two insurance carriers the question is whether one or both of two insurance policies, i. e., a homeowner's policy with personal liability coverage and an automobile insurance policy cover a particular injury.
The trial court held that both carriers should share the coverage and duty to defend. Both have appealed, each contending that the other should bear the entire obligation.
The trial court's Findings of Fact, with the exception of two which we will discuss Infra, are simply a restatement of the stipulated facts upon which the case was tried. We set them out here:
The two remaining findings which are critical to the resolution of this dispute are as follows:
Not mentioned in the findings is the fact that the Farmers Policy specifically excludes from coverage " . . . bodily injury . . . arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of any motor vehicle owned or operated by . . . the insured. . . . "
We are not here dealing with the question of primary and excess coverage for an injury within the ambit of the two policies. Rather, the issue is whether, under the facts, the automobile policy provides coverage and if so, whether the exclusion in Farmers' policy is effective.
Here the trial court found that the injury arose out of the "use" of the vehicle. Essentially National argues that the evidence does not support that finding and that in reality the insured automobile had nothing to do with the injury.
An automobile can be in "use" even though at rest. (United Services Automobile Assn. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 36 Cal.App. 3d 765, 111 Cal.Rptr. 595.) Further, National's policy specifically provides that "use" of an automobile includes loading and unloading. Case law is to the same effect.
The presence of small children in an automobile imposes a particular duty of care and alertness upon the driver in selecting the place for and supervising the manner of discharging the children from the vehicle. The conduct of an ambulatory child of tender years is often impulsive and unpredictable. (Hilyar v. Union Ice Co., 45 Cal.2d 30, 286 P.2d 21.) The process of unloading a child from a motor vehicle does not end the moment that the child's feet touch the ground or when his or her body is entirely outside the vehicle.
The case of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge, 10 Cal.3d 94, 109 Cal.Rptr. 811, 514 P.2d 123, is the primary authority on which National relies for establishing that the Farmers' policy provides coverage. Unfortunately for National that case also points forcefully toward coverage by National's automobile policy. At least...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garvey v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
......Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 109 ... risk), causing damage: severe cracks in the home's foundation. Sabella established that in ...Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., supra, 148 Cal.App.3d 641, 196 Cal.Rptr. ...600, National Indemnity Co., supra, 95 Cal.App.3d 102, 157 ...v. Farmers Home Mutual Ins. Co. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 102, ......
-
Maxum Indem. Co. v. Kaur
... 356 F.Supp.3d 987 MAXUM INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Baldwinder KAUR, d/b/a ... Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol , 133 F.3d 1220, 1222-23 (9th Cir. ...Co. of Connecticut v. KB Home N. Bay, Inc. , No. CV 1:15-481, 2015 WL 5697362, ... of a contract must give effect to the ‘mutual intention’ of the parties" which should be ...Farmers Ins. Exch. , 32 Cal. 4th 1198, 1204, 13 ......
-
Integon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Reece, 1:18-cv-01192-LJO-JLT
... 423 F.Supp.3d 831 INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff; Counter-Defendants, v. Billy ... of a contract must give effect to the ‘mutual intention’ of the parties" which should be inferred ...Farmers Ins. Exch. , 32 Cal. 4th 1198, 1204, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 68, 89 ...Their argument assumes that they were at their home in Bakersfield—i.e. an insured 423 F.Supp.3d 843 ......
-
Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
...557; State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Kohl (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 1031, 182 Cal.Rptr. 720; National Indemnity Co. v. Farmers Home Mutual Ins. Co. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 102, 157 Cal.Rptr. 98; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Camara (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 48, 133 Cal.Rptr. 600; Gonzalez v. St. Paul......
-
CHAPTER 4
...& Cas. Co. v. Kohl (1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 1031 [182 Cal. Rptr. 720]; National Indemnity Co. v. Farmers Home Mutual Ins. Co. (1979) 95 Cal. App. 3d 102 [157 Cal. Rptr. 98]; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Camara (1976) 63 Cal. App. 3d 48 [133 Cal. Rptr. 600]; Gonzalez v. St. Paul Mercury Ins.......
-
APPENDIX 9 FULL TEXT OF GARVEY V. STATE FARM
...& Cas. Co. v. Kohl (1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 1031 [182 Cal. Rptr. 720]; National Indemnity Co. v. Farmers Home Mutual Ins. Co. (1979) 95 Cal. App. 3d 102 [157 Cal. Rptr. 98]; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Camara (1976) 63 Cal. App. 3d 48 [133 Cal. Rptr. 600]; Gonzalez v. St. Paul Mercury Ins.......