United States Fidelity Guaranty Co v. Guenther
| Decision Date | 24 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 179,179 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. GUENTHER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. C. M. Horn, of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.
Mr. William M. Byrnes, of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent.
In February, 1925, the Fidelity & Guaranty Co. issued to Guenther, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, an automobile insurance policy, insuring him against loss and expense arising from claims upon him for damages in consequence of any accident occurring within the United States or Canada by reason of the use of his automobile and resulting in bodily injuries to another person. The policy provided that it was subject to the express condition that it 'shall not cover any liability of the assured while (the automobile is) being operated by any person under the age limit fixed by law or under the age of sixteen years in any event.'
In May, while the policy was in force, the automobile was being operated, with Guenther's consent and premission, by a minor seventeen years of age upon the highways and streets of the city of Lakewood, Ohio, and collided with an inflicted personal injuries upon a third person. At that time there was in force in the city of Lakewood an ordinance which made it 'unlawful for any owner, bailee, lessee or custodian of any motor vehicle to permit a minor under the age of 18 years to operate or run said motor vehicle upon public highways, streets or alleys in said City of Lakewood.' No statute of the State of Ohio made unlawful the operation of an automobile by minors over sixteen years of age.
The injured person sued Guenther, and recovered judgment. Guenther, having paid this judgment, brought an action against the Company on the insurance policy to recover the loss and expense incurred by him in the personal injury suit. This was removed to the Federal District Court for northern Ohio, where Guenther recovered judgment, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 31 F.(2d) 919.
The sole question presented here is whether, under the terms of the policy, liability of the Company was excluded by reason of the municipal ordinance.
1. We think that within the plain meaning of the policy the operator of the automobile was 'under the age limit fixed' by the ordinance. Ture it is that the ordinance does not fix a general age limit for operators of automobiles. but as the ordinance makes it unlawful for the owner of an automobile to permit a minor under eighteen years of age to operate it, to say that when the owner permits a minor only seventeen years of age to operate it the operator is not 'under the age limit fixed' by the ordinance, would be merely sticking in the bark.
2. The fact that a State statute prohibits the employment of a child under sixteen years of age to operate an automobile1 does not affect the validity of the city ordinance. Municipal corporations in Ohio are given 'special power to regulate the use of the streets, to be exercised in the manner provided by law,' and 'the care, supervision and control of public highways, streets,' etc. 2 Plainly, the general statute which merely forbids the employment of minors under sixteen teen years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yost
... ... 1235; Fischer v. Midland Casualty Co., 189 Ill.App ... 486; Bloom v. Franklin Ins. Co., 97 Ind. 478, 49 Am ... Rep. 469; Bradley v. Mutual, etc., Co., 45 N.Y. 432, ... 6 Am. Rep. 115; Cluff v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins ... Co., 13 Allen 308; U. S. F. & G. Co. v ... Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, 74 L.Ed. 683; Mutual Life Ins ... Co. v. Johnson, 293 U.S. 335, 79 L.Ed. 398 ... Not ... only is there a failure on the part of the Guaranty Company ... to show any causal connection between the age or non-age of ... Ensley and the death of Payne in the elevator, but ... ...
-
Teigen v. Wis. Elections Comm'n
...be followed"). A law orders and forbids and governs and establishes in an authoritative way. See U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, 37, 50 S.Ct. 165, 74 L.Ed. 683 (1930) (defining "law" as "the rules of action or conduct duly prescribed by controlling authority, and having bind......
-
Simmons v. United States, 3882.
...Williams v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 291 U.S. 170, at page 180, 54 S.Ct. 348, 78 L.Ed. 711; U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, at page 37, 50 S.Ct. 165, 74 L.Ed. 683. (4) Accepting premiums after insured was arrested estops defendant from denying Defendant answers (1......
-
Southern Surety Co. v. MacMillan Co.
...a plain agreement ambiguous, and then to interpret it in favor of the insured." See, also, United States Fid. & Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, 281 U. S. 34, 50 S. Ct. 165, 74 L. Ed. 683, 72 A. L. R. 1064; Imperial Fire Insurance Co. v. Coos County, 151 U. S. 452, 462, 14 S. Ct. 379, 38 L. Ed. In......