Vann v. Vernon General Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 18678,18678 |
| Citation | 133 N.E.2d 70,126 Ind.App. 503 |
| Parties | Nathan VANN, Appellant, v. VERNON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Anderson, Hicks & Anderson, F. L. Anderson, Sr., and F. L. Anderson, Jr., Gary, Snyder & Jacobs, Karl M. Jacobs, Fowler, for appellant.
Draper & Eichhorn, Gary, Fraser & Isham, Fowler, for appellee.
In this action the appellant sought to recover of the appellee insurer, on a collision policy issued to the former by the latter, an amount claimed to be the entire value of the insured's automobile. Appellee put the complaint at issue and filed an amended third paragraph of answer averring that it had made an election to repair under the policy, had repaired the automobile, and thereby satisfied the policy agreement. The reply denies said answer and alleges that the automobile had not been repaired in accordance with the provisions of the policy.
The issues thus made were submitted to a jury for trial. At the close of appellant's evidence the court directed a verdict for the appellee. Consistent judgment followed and appellant appeals therefrom, charging that the direction of said verdict was erroneous.
The court directed the verdict apparently upon the theory, as urged by appellee, that there was no evidence that the accident resulted in the total loss of the automobile.
There was evidence tending to establish the following material and pertinent facts: On or about August 19, 1950, while appellant's automobile was properly parked on the highway, another automobile collided therewith, knocking the parked automobile back some 300 feet and turning it around. The police department removed it to the Fifth Avenue Ford, Inc., referred to as the Ford agency and garage. The automobile was a 1948 Packard which appellant had purchased new from the Tri-City Motors, Inc., a Packard agency. Later appellant went to the Ford garage and told them he wanted the automobile taken to the Packard garage. He was advised by the Ford agency that the 'insurance people wanted them to do the work.' Later appellant went to the Ford garage and inquired concerning what they were going to do and he was informed that they were taking the frame of the automobile to a frame shop and have it fixed. Appellant objected on the ground that the frame couldn't be fixed without replacing it, to which it was rejoined that to replace the frame would 'cost more than the car is worth.' Upon being advised that the car was ready, appellant and others took it out upon the highway but after proceeding a block or so it failed to function and was towed back to the garage.
Appellant conversed with appellee's adjuster on several occasions, insisting that the automobile would not be as it was without a new frame, but the adjuster advised that 'The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devine v. Grace Construction Co. & Supply Co., 19335
...Bank of Hanna et al. v. Peoples Trust & Savings Bank of LaPorte, 1936, 101 Ind.App. 474, 199 N.E. 892.7 Vann v. Vernon General Insurance Company, 1956, 126 Ind.App. 503, 133 N.E.2d 70, rehearing denied 126 Ind.App. 503, 134 N.E.2d 235; Cunningham, Administrator v. New York Cent. Railroad Co......
-
Bixenman v. Hall
...678, 680, 122 N.E.2d 734; Johnson v. Estate of Gaugh et al., 1955, 125 Ind.App. 510, 519, 124 N.E.2d 704; Vann v. Vernon General Ins. Co., 1956, 126 Ind.App. 503, 133 N.E.2d 70, 134 N.E.2d Also, see: Kampo Transit, Incorporated v. Powers (1965), Ind.App., 211 N.E.2d 781; Pennsylvania Railro......
-
Reynolds v. Langford
...678, 680, 122 N.E.2d 734; Johnson v. Estate of Gaugh et al., 1955, 125 Ind.App. 510, 519, 124 N.E.2d 704; Vann v. Vernon General Ins. Co., 1956, 126 Ind.App. 503, 133 N.E.2d 70, 134 N.E.2d The trial court was justified in sustaining a motion for a directed verdict in the present case unless......
-
Boswell v. Washington
...the party requesting such instruction, all inferences which the jury might reasonably draw, * * *.' Vann v. Vernon General Ins. Co. (1956), 126 Ind.App. 503, 507, 133 N.E.2d 70, 72, 134 N.E.2d 235; Tabor v. Continental Baking Co. (1942), 110 Ind.App. 633, 639, 38 N.E.2d 257 (Trans. denied).......