Quin v. Hoffmann
| Decision Date | 02 February 1954 |
| Citation | 265 Wis. 636,62 N.W.2d 423 |
| Parties | QUIN et al. v. HOFFMANN et al. (Five consolidated actions). |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Five separate actions were instituted by the five plaintiffs against the defendants Dwain Hoffmann and Delbert Hoffmann and their insurance carrier, Home Mutual Casualty Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurance company') to recover damages sustained as the result of an automobile accident, which five actions were consolidated for purposes of trial.
Said accident occurred as the result of a collision between the automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff Frank L. Prescott and the automobile owned by the defendant Dwain Hoffmann and driven by his brother, the defendant Delbert Hoffmann. Such collision happened after dark on the evening of August 11, 1951, at a highway intersection near Oconomowoc in Waukesha county.
The defendant insurance company moved for summary judgment dismissing the actions as to it. This motion was denied by order entered September 18, 1952, and from such order said defendant has appealed. Further facts will be stated in the opinion.
Byrne, Bubolz & Spanagel, Appleton, Lehner, Lehner & Behling, Adolph P. Lehner, Oconto Falls, for appellant.
Brendemuehl & Brendemuehl, Oconomowoc, for defendants-respondents.
Johnson & Herro, Oconomowoc, for plaintiffs-respondents.
The automobile liability insurance policy issued by the defendant Home Mutual Casualty Company to the defendant Dwain Hoffmann contained the statutory omnibus coverage clause required under the provisions of section 204.30(3), Stats. With respect to the coverage of the policy in the event of the insured vehicle being driven by a person other than the named insured, such clause provided:
'The insurance hereby afforded shall not apply unless the riding, use or operation above referred to be with the permission of the assured named in this policy, or if such assured is an individual, with the permission of an adult member of such assured's household other than a chauffeur or domestic servant.' (Italics supplied.)
The policy contained no exclusion clause relating to the operation of the insured automobile by an unlicensed driver.
The adverse examinations of both the defendants Dwain Hoffmann and Delbert Hoffmann had been taken prior to the motion for summary judgment, and said adverse examinations were made part of the motion papers by reference. Dwain Hoffmann, the owner of the insured vehicle, was not an occupant thereof at the time of the accident, but both he and his brother, Delbert, testified at said adverse examinations that at the time of the accident said vehicle was being driven by Delbert with the permission of Dwain. At that time Delbert was but fifteen years of age and possessed no license to drive. The only license which could legally be issued to a boy of that age was the special permit provided by section 85.08(9)(b), Stats.1951, which would have restricted him to driving a vehicle owned by his parent or guardian during daylight hours only, but Delbert did not possess such a special permit.
Section 85.08(39), Stats., provides as follows:
'No person shall authorize or knowingly permit a motor vehicle owned by him or under his control to be operated upon any highway by any person who is not authorized hereunder or in violation of any of the provisions of this section.'
The question presented on this appeal is the very narrow one of whether the word 'permission' as used in the statutory omnibus coverage clause is to be construed as being restricted to legal permission or whether it would cover any case of actual permission irrespective of whether the same might be legal or illegal.
In resolving this question of construction, the legislature has provided us with no guide with which to determine the legislative intent. In the absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davidson v. Fireman's Fund Indem. Co.
...N.H. 373, 111 A.2d 827). As such additional insured, the son became entitled to the same protection as the named insured (Quin v. Hoffmann, 265 Wis. 636, 62 N.W.2d 423). Unlike the clause which limits the 'Use of Other Automobiles' to the named insured and his spouse, there is no such restr......
-
Challoner v. Pennings
...should in equity do what was done in Pavelski v. Roginski, 1 Wis.2d 345, 84 N.W.2d 84, where we reversed our decision in Quin v. Hoffmann, 265 Wis. 636, 62 N.W.2d 423. The same argument was made to the trial court. As to the first part thereof, the court said in its memorandum decision: 'If......
- Maus v. Bloss
-
Behringer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...night and the car was occupied by more than one other passenger. Universal Underwriters maintain that the principle of Quin v. Hoffmann, 1954, 265 Wis. 636, 62 N.W.2d 423, applies and voids any coverage under its policy. This is because the permission by Arden's father to drive was an illeg......