Teter v. Corley, 49368
Decision Date | 15 September 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 49368,49368 |
Parties | Beverly J. TETER and Insurance Company of North America, Appellees, v. Jerry L. CORLEY and Herbert E. Corley, Defendants, and Ranger Insurance Company, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
In a garnishment proceeding against an automobile liability insurer, it is Held: the insured driver of a temporary substitute automobile was not a "resident of the same household" as the owner of such vehicle.
Michael R. O'Neal, of Hodge, Reynolds, Smith, Peirce & Forker, Hutchinson, for appellant.
Joseph A. Knopp and Herbert R. Hess, Jr., of Hess, Leslie, Berkley & Granger, Hutchinson, for appellees.
Before REES, P. J., and SPENCER and PARKS, JJ.
This is an appeal by an insurer ("Ranger") from a determination that it afforded coverage under an automobile liability insurance policy.
On February 2, 1975, a Chevrolet automobile was involved in an accident. Beverly J. Teter, a passenger, was injured. The driver was Jerry L. Corley. The car was owned by Jerry's father, Herbert E. Corley, who had no insurance. There was in effect an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Ranger to Jerry as its named insured. Jerry's Chevrolet van was the "owned automobile" under Ranger's policy.
Beverly and the Insurance Company of North America obtained judgments against Jerry for damages resulting from the accident. They then successfully prosecuted this garnishment proceeding to satisfy the judgments. Ranger contends it afforded no coverage.
Ranger's policy provided coverage for liability arising out of use of a temporary substitute automobile. The latter is defined by the policy as follows:
" 'Temporary substitute automobile' means an automobile not owned by the named insured or any resident of the same household while temporarily used with the permission of the owner as a substitute for an owned automobile when withdrawn from normal use for servicing or repair, or because of its breakdown, loss or destruction."
Ranger has effectively conceded that Jerry's use of the car came under its coverage as use of a temporary substitute automobile but for the definitional element of non-ownership by "any resident of the same household." Accordingly the sole issue is whether Jerry was a resident of the same household as his father on the date of the accident. The trial court held he was not. We are asked to hold as a matter of law that he was.
Review of the record discloses that the following findings of fact by the trial court aptly reflect and summarize the evidence:
An obvious reason lying behind Ranger's denial of coverage was that on various occasions when Ranger contacted Jerry in its investigation of the accident and the question of coverage, Jerry gave Ranger his parents' address as his address as of and at other times after the accident date. In this general regard, the trial court found:
In the trial court and before us, Ranger has taken upon itself the burden of proof to establish that Jerry and his father were residents of the same household. Having failed to do so, in the judgment of the trial court, it was held as a conclusion of law that:
The trial judge gave the parties the benefit of comments concerning his consideration of the case. He had taken into account, among other matters, statutory definitions of "residence" and "householder" (K.S.A. 77-201, Twenty-third and Twenty-fifth ) as well as Vaughn v. American Alliance Ins. Co., 138 Kan. 731, 27 P.2d 212 (1933), and General Leasing Corp. v. Anderson, 197 Kan. 327, 416 P.2d 302 (1966). Most directly he said:
Although not automobile liability insurance cases, Estate of Schoof v. Schoof, 193 Kan. 611, 612, 396 P.2d 329 (1964); Buehne v. Buehne, 190 Kan. 666, 676, 378 P.2d 159 (1963); Irvin v. Irvin, 182 Kan. 563, 566-567, 322 P.2d 794 (1958); Gleason v. Gleason, 159 Kan. 448, Syl., 155 P.2d 465 (1945), are authority for the rule that a determination of residence by a trial court is generally a question of fact which will be upheld on appeal when supported by substantial competent evidence. We discern no reason for the rule to be otherwise here.
The law concerning the establishment and continuance of a "residence" is well stated in Estate of Schoof v. Schoof, supra, as follows:
(193 Kan. at 614, 396 P.2d at 331.)
In reality, two separate intentions are involved; one to abandon the old location and one to abide in the new. If the last intention be formed, it necessarily includes the first. Arnette v. Arnette, 162 Kan. 677, Syl. 4, 178 P.2d 1019 (1947).
We believe the definition set forth in Estate of Schoof v. Schoof, supra, is controlling, that is, "residence" requires two elements: (1) bodily presence at the location, and (2) intent to remain there either permanently or for an indefinite period.
A case similar to the one before us is State Farm Mutual v. Smith, 206 Va. 280, 142 S.E.2d 562 (1965). The insured had moved from California to Virginia to live with her sister and brother-in-law. The insured intended to live with her relatives only until her baby was born. Some eight weeks after moving to Virginia, the insured was involved in an accident while driving her br...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Friedman v. Alliance Ins. Co., Inc.
...once established is presumed to continue until another one is clearly established." The court then discussed Teter v. Corley, 2 Kan.App.2d 540, 584 P.2d 651 (1978), and "David Friedman was not a footloose wanderer. He knew where his root was, and it was at 641 North Woodlawn, Wichita, Kansa......
-
Phillips' Estate, Matter of
...This Court recently reviewed the well-settled Kansas rules relating to the determination of a "residence" in Teter v. Corley, 2 Kan.App.2d 540, 542-43, 584 P.2d 651, 653-54 (1978), where it was "The law concerning the establishment and continuance of a 'residence' is well stated in Estate o......
-
Davani v. Travelers Pers. Ins. Co.
... ... an indefinite period of time. Teter v. Corley, 2 ... Kan.App.2d 540, 542, 584 P.2d 651, 653 (1978) ... ...
-
Kansas Farm Bureau Ins. Co., Inc. v. Reynolds
...the reasoning, logic, or result in either Friedman v. Alliance Ins. Co., 240 Kan. 229, 729 P.2d 1160 (1986), or Teter v. Corley, 2 Kan.App.2d 540, 541-42, 584 P.2d 651 (1978). Although both cases considered whether a family member was the resident of a household for insurance coverage purpo......