Samuels v. American Automobile Ins. Co.

Decision Date20 June 1945
Docket NumberNo. 3089.,3089.
Citation150 F.2d 221,160 ALR 1191
PartiesSAMUELS et al. v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

R. D. Hudson, of Tulsa, Okl. (R. A. Wilkerson, of Pryor, Okl., and Ben Murdock, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.

V. P. Crowe, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Embry, Johnson, Crowe, Tolbert & Shelton, and C. Harold Thweatt, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

On May 24, 1942, the American Automobile Insurance Company1 issued its automobile liability insurance policy covering a 1939 Chevrolet Sedan automobile, in which Minnie Richman2 was the named insured. The policy provides:

"III. Definition of `Insured.' The unqualified word `insured' * * * includes the named insured and, except where specifically stated to the contrary, also includes any person while using the automobile * * * provided the actual use of the automobile is with the permission of the named insured."

It provides that the Insurance Company shall "pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages, * * * sustained by any person or persons, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the automobile."

Shortly before the issuance of the policy, the named insured had purchased the automobile and had taken title thereto in her own name. Her son, Israel J. Richman, paid a portion of the purchase price of the automobile. He was about to be inducted into the Army and the named insured turned the automobile over to him without any express limitations or restrictions as to its use.

Thereafter, Richman was stationed at Camp Gruber, near Muskogee, Oklahoma, and there had the automobile in his possession pursuant to his mother's general permission to use it. He obtained a weekend leave and in company with a fellow soldier, Clinton F. Kresge, left the post on the afternoon of September 5, 1942, in the automobile and proceeded to a beer tavern near Salina, Oklahoma, where they danced and drank intoxicating liquor. Richman rented a room and retired about midnight. About 5 a. m., September 6, 1942, while the automobile was being driven by Kresge, accompanied by a girl friend, a collision occurred between such automobile and an automobile in which Carl R. Samuels, Ada Briggs, Ruby Duncan, Sam F. Brown, and Mrs. Sam F. Brown were riding. The collision occurred on U. S. Highway 20, at a point not far distant from the tavern. At the time of the collision, Richman was not riding in the insured automobile and Kresge was using it on a mission purely personal to himself. The occupants of the other automobile commenced actions against Richman alone to recover damages for injuries resulting from the accident. Samuels and Briggs filed their actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The other occupants filed their actions in the District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma. In the complaint in each of such actions it was alleged that Richman was negligent in permitting Kresge to take and drive the insured automobile with knowledge that Kresge was in a drunken condition and not a fit person to drive such automobile, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries suffered.

In his answers, Richman denied that either he or Kresge was intoxicated and denied that he permitted Kresge to take and drive the automobile.

The actions brought by Samuels and Briggs were consolidated and tried before the court without a jury. In the consolidated case the court found that Richman and Kresge went to the tavern and there danced and drank beer; that Kresge became noticeably intoxicated; that later in the night, Kresge obtained from Richman the keys to the insured automobile, and thereafter used and drove such automobile; that Richman, knowing that Kresge was in a drunken condition and not a suitable person to drive such automobile, permitted Kresge to take and drive it and, in so doing, was guilty of negligence, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries to Samuels and Briggs.

A judgment was rendered in favor of Samuels for $4,135 and in favor of Briggs for $4,982. The actions brought against Richman in the state court were still pending when the instant action was tried below.

After the judgments were rendered in the consolidated case, the Insurance Company brought this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against Richman and the several plaintiffs in the damage actions seeking a declaratory judgment adjudging whether it was obligated to pay the judgments recovered in the consolidated case and to defend the actions pending in the state court.

The court entered its judgment adjudging that the Insurance Company was not obligated to pay the judgments recovered in the consolidated case, nor to defend the actions pending in the state court. The defendants below, other than Richman, have appealed.

The question here presented is whether Richman, at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Baesler v. Globe Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1960
    ...Va. 368, 57 S.E.2d 93 (Sup.Ct.App.1950); Perrodin v. Thibodeaux, 191 So. 148 (La.Ct.App.1939). Contra, Samuels v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 150 F.2d 221, 160 A.L.R. 1191 (10 Cir.1945). The first permittee, by being granted complete dominion over the insured automobile, is put in the sho......
  • GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. Woodby, 12769-12770.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 4, 1956
    ...Union Indemnity Co., 9 Cir., 35 F.2d 104; Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. DeMaison, 3 Cir., 213 F.2d 826; Samuels v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 150 F. 2d 221, 160 A.L.R. 1191. This is particularly so when the first permittee transfers possession and use of the car to another user c......
  • Helmkamp v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 1966
    ...advantage to either Mr. O' Kelley or his son, the case falls squarely within the rule set forth in Samuels et al. v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 221, 223, 160 A.L.R. 1191: 'It has generally been held that where A, the owner of an automobile, gives general permission to B......
  • Saltzman v. Great American Indemnity Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas
    • October 29, 1953
    ...`To employ for some purpose, put into service, or make use of * * *; apply to one's own purposes.'" Samuels v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 221, 223, 160 A.L.R. 1191. "In the instant case the terms in question are `use' and `using'. Now a car would be used by a person, wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT