Norris v. Allstate Ins. Co., A--103
| Decision Date | 10 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. A--103,A--103 |
| Parties | Thomas B. NORRIS and Charles T. Norris, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Defendant-Appellant, and Thomas Wilkie et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Ervan F. Kushner, Paterson, for plaintiffs-respondents, Thomas B. Norris and Charles T. Norris (Samuel A. Wiener, Paterson, for defendants-respondents, Robert Orr, guardian ad litem for Ruth Ann Orr, and Robert Orr, individually).
Edward C. Hillis, Newark, for defendant-appellant, Allstate Ins. Company, etc. (Marley, Winkelried & Hillis, Newark, attorneys).
Harry C. Chashin, Paterson, for defendants-respondents, Ruth Higgins, as administratrix ad prosequendum and as administratrix of the goods and chattels, etc., of Wilfred George Higgins, Wilfred Higgins, Sr., and Michael Pressing (Marcus & Levy, Paterson, attorneys).
In this action a judgment was sought declaring that an automobile liability insurance policy issued by defendant to plaintiff, Thomas B. Norris, provided coverage for a certain automobile owned by Norris and driven by his son, plaintiff Charles T. Norris, which was involved in an accident. The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant insurer appealed to the Appellate Division but we certified the matter on our own motion before argument there.
Defendant's contract of insurance, as issued to Thomas B. Norris, covered a 1952 Plymouth. During the policy period Norris purchased and registered in his name an additional vehicle, a 1955 Ford two-door sedan. This Ford car, while being driven by Norris' son Charles, collided with another vehicle. Defendant took the position that the second car was not entitled to the insurance protection. The policy provides, however:
'The insurance afforded by this policy with respect to the owned automobile shall also apply to any other automobile of which the named insured or spouse acquires ownership; provided it * * * is an additional (automobile) and Allstate insures all automobiles of the named insured; and provided notice of its delivery be given to Allstate * * *.'
On the record presented, the Ford automobile is clearly within this provision. We agree with the trial court that no basis whatever exists for the defendant's disclaimer of coverage.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance: Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merchants Indem. Corp. v. Eggleston
...There has been much litigation with respect to 'ownership' provisions in automobile liability policies. Norris v. Allstate Insurance Co., 34 N.J. 437, 170 A.2d 33 (1961); Eggerding v. Bicknell, 20 N.J. 106, 118 A.2d 820 (1955); Ambrose v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, 124 N.J.L.......
-
State v. One (1) Ford Van, Econoline, White, Bearing Delaware Registration C80-195 S/N-E14GHR09151
...procedure was still the "owner" thereof for purposes of insurance coverage under the terms of its policy; and Norris v. Allstate Ins. Co., 34 N.J. 437, (170 A.2d 33) (1961), also holding that the named assured had acquired "ownership" of a vehicle within the meaning of a liability clause wh......
-
Merchants Indem. Corp. of N. Y. v. Eggleston
...statutory procedure was still the 'owner' thereof for purposes of insurance coverage under the terms of its policy; and Norris v. Allstate Ins. Co., 34 N.J. 437 (1961), also holding that the named assured had acquired 'ownership' of a vehicle within the meaning of a liability clause when he......
-
Friedman v. Royal Globe Ins. Companies
...of title should be no less favorable than the owner of the stolen vehicle in Savarese. But defendants, citing Norris v. Allstate Ins. Co., 34 N.J. 437, 170 A.2d 33 (1961); Merchants Indemnity Corp. v. Eggleston, 68 N.J.Super. 235, 172 A.2d 206 (App.Div.1961), aff'd 37 N.J. 114, 179 A.2d 505......