State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Selders

• Decision Date: 15 October 1971
• Docket Number: No. 37902,37902
• Citation: 190 N.W.2d 789,187 Neb. 342
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. Earl B. SELDERS et al., Appellants.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 789

190 N.W.2d 789

187 Neb. 342

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. Earl B. SELDERS et al., Appellants.

No. 37902.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Oct. 15, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In an automobile liability insurance policy, the word household in an omnibus clause extending the liability available to insured to other members of the household means those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family.

2. Where the evidence, in an action for reformation of a written instrument, is sharply and irreconcilably conflicting, it becomes necessary to apply the well-known rule of equity that the evidence must be clear, convincing, and satisfactory, and, in consequence, deny a reformation.

3. The measure of damages in an action for the wrongful death of a minor child is the pecuniary loss which the parent sustains by reason of being deprived of the child's services during his minority and the loss of contributions that might reasonably be expected to be made after reaching his majority.

4. Medical or funeral expenses resulting from a wrongful death are recoverable as damages in an action under sections 30--809 and 30--810, R.R.S.1943, when the beneficiaries for whom the action is being brought have paid or have legally obligated themselves to pay such expenses and may be recovered in a separate cause of action.

5. Section 60--509.01, R.R.S.1943, requires uninsured motorist insurance for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles.

6. It is the purpose of section 60--509.01, R.R.S.1943, to give the same protection to the person injured by an uninsured motorist as he would have had if he had been injured in an accident caused by an automobile covered by a standard liability policy. Such provisions are to be liberally construed to accomplish such purpose.

George H. Moyer, Jr., Moyer & Moyer, Madison, for appellants.

Deutsch & Hagen, Thomas H. DeLay, Norfolk, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, NEWTON, and CLINTON, JJ.

NEWTON, Justice.

This is an action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act wherein plaintiff seeks to be relieved of liability under an insurance policy issued to defendant Earl B. Selders. Judgment was entered for plaintiff in the district court. We reverse that judgment in part.

Plaintiff issued to Earl B. Selders a policy of insurance on an automobile jointly owned by Earl B. Selders and his wife Ila Selders. The policy provided for uninsured automobile coverage but limited persons so insured as follows: 'The unqualified word 'insured' means

'(1) the first person named in the declarations and while residents of his household, his spouse and the relatives of either;

'(2) any other person while occupying an insured automobile; and

'(3) any person, with respect to damages he is entitled to recover for care or loss of services because of bodily injury to which this coverage applies.'

After issuance of the policy, Earl and Ila Selders separated and lived in separate establishments. A divorce decree was entered awarding the minor children to Ila until further order of the court and requiring Earl to pay for their support. Earl also had visitation privileges. The decree was entered on October 10, 1966, and before it became final, three of the children died as the result of an accident which occurred on February 3, 1967. The children were passengers in an uninsured automobile involved in a one-car accident. The only question presented is whether damages sustained were covered by the policy at the time of the accident. Plaintiff contends that they were not because the children were not then members of their father's household and he was the only named insured.

It is apparent that after the separation of their parents, the children, residing with their mother, were members of her household and had ceased to be members of their father's household as he had moved out and was living elsewhere. 'In an automobile liability insurance policy, the word 'household' in an omnibus clause extending the liability available to assured to other members of the household means 'Those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family. " Andrews v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 128 Neb. 496, 259 N.W. 653.

Defendants have asked for reformation of the policy to include Ila Selders as a named insured. This was denied in the district court and we concur that defendants are not entitled to reformation. Without attempting to detail the lengthy evidence submitted on this point, suffice it to say that defendants have failed to meet the required burden of proof. 'In an action for reformation of a written instrument, the burden rests upon the moving party of overcoming the strong presumption arising from the terms of the written instrument. If the proofs are doubtful and unsatisfactory and if there is a failure to overcome this presumption by testimony entirely plain and convincing beyond reasonable controversy, the writing will be held to express correctly the intention of the parties.

'Where the evidence, in an action for reformation of a written instrument, is sharply and irreconcilably conflicting, it becomes necessary to apply the well-known rule of equity that the evidence must be clear, convincing and satisfactory, and, in consequence, deny a reformation.' Beideck v. National Fire Ins. Co., 139 Neb. 171, 296 N.W. 873. See, also, Du Teau Co., Inc. v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 156 Neb. 690, 57 N.W.2d 663.

Since Ila Selders was not a named insured and not a member of the household of Earl B. Selders, she is not an additional insured and has no standing such as would permit her to recover under the policy issued by plain...