Temple v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1977 |
| Parties | Robert E. TEMPLE and Doris J. Temple, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Fred E. Fischer, Louisville, for appellants.
Henry V. B. Denzer, Hogan, Taylor, Denzer & Bennett, Louisville, for appellee.
This appeal involves a claim by Robert E. Temple and his wife Doris against State Farm for recovery of damages under the uninsured motorist provisions of their automobile liability policy. The trial court dismissed the Temples' complaint and held that they had materially breached the terms and provisions of the policy by reason of their failure and refusal to give statements to the representatives of State Farm. In this appeal, the Temples contend they were relieved from a literal compliance with the provisions of the policy. They assert such "essential information" was furnished State Farm so as to constitute substantial compliance.
On March 14, 1970, the Temples were involved in an accident with John Wissing, an alleged uninsured motorist. Shortly thereafter, Robert Temple reported the accident to State Farm. At the request of State Farm's agent, Scheynost, Temple forwarded a copy of the police accident report to State Farm. Within a few days, an adjuster for State Farm appeared at the Temples' home and spoke with Robert Temple about the accident. The adjuster told Temple that he would call him back and take his statement over the telephone. In the meantime the Temples contacted Cletus Amlung, an attorney who agreed to prosecute their claim. Sometime after Amlung's employment, State Farm's adjuster called Robert Temple and requested that he give his statement over the telephone. Temple referred the adjuster to his attorney, Amlung. Amlung refused to allow either of the Temples to give a sworn statement.
On April 2, 1970, State Farm sent a letter to the Temples advising them of the provisions of their policy and, that as a result of their failure to cooperate, State Farm was reserving its right to deny coverage. On May 4, 1970, and again on May 28, 1970, counsel for State Farm sent letters to Amlung requesting the Temples' sworn statements, which Amlung again refused to allow.
On January 27, 1971, the Temples filed suit against Wissing and State Farm. Wissing has never been served with summons. State Farm answered. It asserted the Temples had breached the provisions of their insurance policy by failing to give sworn statements as were requested by the company. It claimed such breach was material and sufficient grounds for denial of coverage.
The pertinent policy provisions are as follows:
(a) unless as a condition precedent thereto there shall have been full compliance with all terms of this policy.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Coleman
...which may be liable to the insured because of injury or damage to which this insurance may also apply. 3. In Temple v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 548 S.W.2d 838 (Ky.1977), the insureds brought an action against their insurer to recover damages under the uninsured motorist provisions of their......
-
McKimm v. Bell, 57
...the validity of conditions precedent to uninsured motorist coverage, such as those set out above. See, for example, Temple v. State Farm Ins. Co., 548 S.W.2d 838 (Ky.1977); Frager v. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co., 161 Conn. 472, 289 A.2d 896 (1971); Martinson v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., ......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Adams
...provision requiring insureds to submit a sworn statement was an enforceable condition precedent to coverage. Temple v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.,548 S.W.2d 838 (Ky. 1977). In Temple, the insureds were involved in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured motor vehicle and sought coverage fo......
-
Andrews v. Indemnity, 2016-CA-000107-MR
...of injuries, treatment, and other details entering the determination of the amounts payable.'" Id. (quoting Temple v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 548 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Ky. 1977)). Nothing in the MVRA prevents an insurer from requiring a person seeking benefits under the policy to give a statem......