U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baker
Decision Date | 21 April 1931 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 462. |
Citation | 134 So. 894,24 Ala.App. 274 |
Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. BAKER. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 5, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; Thos. E. Knight, Judge.
Action on policy of liability insurance by Lillian H. Baker against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baker (2 Div. 986) 134 So. 896.
Arthur M. Pitts, of Selma, for appellant.
Mallory, Mallory & Lapsley and Harry W. Gamble all of Selma, for appellee.
The policy or contract sued on insured plaintiff (appellee here) "against liability for loss and for expense arising or resulting from claims upon assured (appellee) for damages in consequence of an accident *** during the term of this policy, of the automobile *** enumerated and described herein resulting in, (A) Bodily injuries, or death at any time therefrom, suffered by any person or persons, excepting" (exceptions not necessary to mention).
It appears that Mrs. Baker, the appellee, was the owner and operator of an automobile, which, while she was driving, was turned over, resulting in bodily injuries to Mrs. N.H Rainer, who was an occupant of the car at the time of the accident; that the party injured was the wife of W. W Rainer; that, in consequence of said accident and by reason of the bodily injuries to his wife occasioned thereby, he was forced to pay out large sums of money for her treatment and care by doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc., for which he brought suit against Mrs. Baker for $5,000. This suit was in addition to one by Mrs. Rainer for damages which she suffered, in which suit, however, she made no claim for money spent for doctors and similar services, as such expenses were not incurred or paid by her, but were incurred and paid by her husband; hence separate suit by him.
The original complaint also embraced a claim for loss of his wife's services, but before the trial this item was stricken out and the total amount claimed reduced to $700, the damage being confined to amounts paid out by him for doctors, nurses, hospital and similar treatment of his wife made necessary by the injuries to her resulting from said accident.
This agreement to amend complaint and reduce claim was conditioned upon an agreement that the case be tried at the term of court for which it was originally set, as fully appears from the agreed statement of facts.
It also appears from this statement that, at the time of the accident, Mrs. Baker, as the owner of the automobile in question, was insured by the appellant, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, "against liability for loss and or expense, arising or resulting from claims upon her for damages in consequence of an accident *** by reason of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile in question, resulting in bodily injuries to any person."
It further appears that W. W. Rainer, the husband of the injured party, was forced to pay out large sums of money for the necessary treatment of bodily injuries to his wife, which injuries were caused by said accident.
It further appears that said W. W. Rainer brought suit against Mrs. Baker for such amounts so paid out by him, and upon the trial introduced evidence to the effect that the amounts aggregated $700; that it was a reasonable amount and was for services that were required and necessary in the treatment of the bodily injuries resulting to his wife from the accident to said automobile. There was evidence tending to fasten liability upon Mrs. Baker. The jury returned a verdict against her for $350.
It also appears that, after said judgment was rendered and had become final, appellee called upon appellant to pay the same, which it refused to do,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Curry & Turner Const. Co., Inc. v. Bryan
... ... 503; York v ... Stokes, 129 So. 226; U.S. F. & G. Co. v. Baker, ... 134 So. 894; Aplin v. Dean, 164 So. 737; 17 C. J., ... sections ... ...
-
National Mortg. Corp. v. American Title Ins. Co.
...Threshermen & Farmer's Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Robertson, 157 F.Supp. 405 (M.D.N.C.1957); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baker, 24 Ala.App. 274, 134 So. 894 (1931). Compare, Insurance Co. v. Harrison-Wright Co., 207 N.C. 661, 178 S.E. 235 (1935). Plaintiff was entitled to......
-
Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Michalic
...the provisions in an automobile liability policy are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baker, 24 Ala.App. 274, 134 So. 894, cert. denied, 223 Ala. 172, 134 So. 896, (1931). The trial court, apparently following these rules of constru......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 1101332
...in an insurance contract must be construed liberally in favor of the insured. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baker, 24 Ala. App. 274, 134 So. 894, cert, denied 223 Ala. 172, 134 So. 896 (1931). A corollary to this rule is that exceptions to coverage must be interpreted as narrowly......