State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Padilla

Decision Date07 October 1975
Docket NumberNo. 1145--III,1145--III
PartiesSTATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Helen I. PADILLA, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Manuel Padilla, and Elizabeth M. Wonch, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of James Wonch, Respondents.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

Brian B. Kennedy, Turner, Stoeve, Gagliardi & Kennedy, Spokane, for appellant.

Daniel L. Collins, Colville, for respondent Padilla.

Larry M. Kristianson, Skok & Kristianson, Chewelah, for respondent Wonch.

GREEN, Judge.

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. appeals from a judgment declaring that Manuel Padilla, deceased, obtained a policy of insurance on a 1965 Rambler Marlin and that such policy was in effect on June 11, 1971. The sole issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact essential to the conclusion of coverage.

The following facts are virtually undisputed. On June 11, 1971, Manuel Padilla and James Wonch were killed in an automobile accident. The Padilla and Wonch families are relative strangers. A few years prior to the accident, the Padillas moved to Colville, Washington from the State of Maine. At that time they insured their 1968 Dodge wagon with State Farm through a local agent, Gerald Willett. Subsequently, they bought another automobile and insured it with State Farm through Mr. Willett. In late May 1971, the Padillas traded the latter vehicle on a 1965 Rambler Marlin which they planned to give their daughter as a high school graduation present. After obtaining the Rambler and a few days before the accident, Mr. Padilla consulted with Mr. Willett to find out the most economical way to insure the Rambler. Mr. Padilla obtained the necessary information and discussed the alternatives with Mrs. Padilla. Mrs. Padilla testified that they concluded the best alternative was to 'add (the Rambler) on to their existing policy.' Mrs. Padilla does not know of her own knowledge whether Mr. Padilla ever notified Mr. Willett of their decision.

On Friday evening, June 11, 1971, Mr. Willett learned that the Rambler was involved in an accident in which Mr. Padilla and Mr. Wonch were killed. On Monday, June 14, Mrs. Padilla telephoned Mr. Willett to report the accident. At that time there was no question in Mr. Willett's mind as to which vehicle was involved in the accident and in the course of the conversation and after Mrs. Padilla had identified herself, Mr. Willett responded by saying, 'Don't worry about it, everything is taken care of.' About a week after the accident, a State Farm claim agent told Mrs. Padilla that payment would be made for the Rambler.

The attorney for the Wonch estate, while investigating the matter, visited Mr. Willett's office to determine whether or not the Rambler was covered by insurance. At the time of this visit, he was given the office file pertaining to the Padilla insurance coverage. On the top sheet of that file, the attorney saw the words '1965 Rambler' below which was a long number. These words and the number were enclosed in an oblong circle above which the word 'insured' was placed. At the time of trial this document was missing from the file. The foregoing facts are contained in findings of fact to which no error is assigned and become verities on appeal. CAROA 43.

Plaintiff assigns error to the following findings of fact:

18.

The document that is described in Paragraph XVI above was logically a notation by Mr. Gerald Willett or by his Secretary with reference to insurance on the Rambler Marlin vehicle.

19.

Some time between the time of the conversation referenced in Paragraph IX and the date of his death on Friday, June 11, 1971, Manuel Padilla contacted Gerald Willett and arranged to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Azeen
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 25 Mayo 2021
    ...speculation or conjecture when founded on reasonable inferences drawn from circumstantial facts. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Padilla , 14 Wash.App. 337, 339-40, 540 P.2d 1395 (1975). This proposition conversely suggests that an inference is not reasonable if based on speculation ......
  • In re Arntsen
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 3 Enero 2023
    ...from circumstantial facts. State v. Jameison, 4 Wash. App. 2d 184, 197-98, 421 P.3d 463 (2018) (citing State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Padilla, 14 Wash. App. 337, 339-40, 540 P.2d 1395 (1975) ). "This proposition conversely suggests that an inference is not reasonable if based on speculation or......
  • Seneca Foods Corporation v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 21860-1-III (WA 2/3/2005)
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 3 Febrero 2005
    ... ... See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v ... Padilla, 14 Wn. App. 337, 339, ... ...
  • State v. Jameison
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 28 Junio 2018
    ...on reasonable inferences drawn from circumstantial facts. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Padilla , 14 Wash. App. 337, 339-40, 540 P.2d 1395 (1975). This proposition conversely suggests that an inference is not reasonable if based on speculation or conjecture. This observation, howev......
  • 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