Reed v. Pelkola

• Citation: 140 Wis.2d 859,409 N.W.2d 670
• Parties: NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. GEORGE G. REED and LILA K. REED, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT S. PELKOLA and ROSE M. PELKOLA, Defendants, MODERN SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, FIDELITY AND GUARANTEE INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Defendant-Respondent. 86-1687.
• Decision Date: 19 May 1987
• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Page 670

409 N.W.2d 670

140 Wis.2d 859

NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES.

GEORGE G. REED and LILA K. REED, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT S. PELKOLA and ROSE M. PELKOLA, Defendants MODERN SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant FIDELITY AND GUARANTEE INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC. Defendant-Respondent.

86-1687.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

May 19, 1987.

Circuit Court, Iron County

Affirmed

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Iron county: Ronald D. Keberle, Judge.

Before CANE, P.J., LaROCQUE and MYSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Modern Service Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment resolving a coverage dispute with Fidelity and Guarantee Insurance Underwriters, Inc. Robert Pelkola was the driver in an accident that killed the daughter of the plaintiffs, George and Lila Reed. Modern Service insured Rose Pelkola and her family, including Robert, and Fidelity provided uninsured motorists coverage to the accident victim. The issue in the trial court and on appeal is whether Modern Service's policy covered Pelkola for this particular accident. Because we agree with the trial court that it did, we affirm.

Modern Service's policy covered Pelkola for liability while driving the car identified on the policy or any 'nonowned car.' The policy defined 'nonowned car' as a car 'not owned by, registered in the name of or furnished or available for the regular or frequent use of' the insured or the insured's family.

Russell Lundgren held title to the car Pelkola drove in the accident. Three weeks before the accident Lundgren had given the car, then inoperable, to a group of minors, including Pelkola, so they could strip it for parts. After Lundgren learned that the boys had instead made the car operable, he reported that fact to the police, and ordered the boys to keep the car off any streets or roads.

Beginning anywhere from five days to two and one-half weeks before the accident, Pelkola drove the car approximately five times, mostly on abandoned railroad grades, for the purpose of joy riding with his friends. He also drove it on the roads more than once on his way to pick up his friends. The car remained at his residence when ont in use and Pelkola kept the keys. He did not seek permission from Lundgren before driving it.

Based on these undisputed facts, Modern Service contends that the policy excluded coverage because Pelkola owned the car and had it available for his regular or frequent use. Whether the car was a nonowned car under the policy of insurance is a question of law appropriately decided on summary judgment. See Moutry v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 35 Wis.2d 652, 656, 151 N.W.2d 630, 632 (1967). We decide such questions without deference to the trial court. Blackhawk Credit v. Chicago Title Ins., 135 Wis.2d 324, 332, 400...