Wyatt v. Cimarron Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 12 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 5326.,5326. |
| Citation | 235 F.2d 243 |
| Parties | Ruth B. WYATT, Administratrix of the Estate of Cecil H. Wyatt, deceased, Appellant, v. CIMARRON INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Wm. J. Holloway, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl. (Embry, Crowe, Tolbert, Boxley & Johnson and V. P. Crowe, Oklahoma City, Okl., were with him on the brief), for appellant.
Gus Rinehart, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Butler, Rinehart & Morrison, Oklahoma City, Okl., were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before HUXMAN, MURRAH, and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
Ray & Wyatt, a copartnership composed of Walter Ray and C. H. Wyatt, conducted an insurance and finance business in the city of Frederick, Oklahoma. The partnership owned a Mercury automobile upon which the partnership, as agents for the plaintiff company, wrote a public liability insurance policy. The policy provided that the purposes for which the automobile was to be used were "business and pleasure, Class 3." Wyatt individually owned a Buick automobile and a Ford pickup which were also covered by public liability insurance in the plaintiff company. All the policies contained a provision which covered the insured while using other automobiles.1 There was an exception to this provision, making the insurance inapplicable when the "other automobile" was "owned by" or "furnished for the regular use of the named insured". The plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action for a determination of its liability under the policies written on the Buick and Ford pickup for damages caused by Wyatt while driving the Mercury automobile. The trial court found that the Mercury was furnished for the regular use of Wyatt and came within the exception with respect to the use of other automobiles. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff company.
The case is here on a stipulated record which discloses that the partnership of Ray & Wyatt had been in existence since 1938; that the partnership bought the Mercury automobile in question and it was maintained with partnership funds. Wyatt was the manager of the partnership and used the Mercury in connection with partnership business. It was not kept in a garage, and was parked during working hours at or near the partnership office, and near the home of Wyatt when not in use. There is no evidence that anyone else used the Mercury except Wyatt and prior to April 16, 1955, it had seldom been used except for partnership business in the local area. On the 16th of April, 1955, Wyatt left Frederick in the Mercury for the purpose of driving to Oklahoma City to attend a Lions Club meeting. En route he collided with another automobile and was killed. One person in the other automobile was killed and two others seriously injured. Three personal injury actions were instituted against Wyatt's estate to recover damages for the death and injuries suffered in the collision. The plaintiff acknowledges liability under the Mercury policy but contends that the aforementioned "use of other automobiles" provisions in the policies covering the Buick and Ford pickup are not applicable.
The essence of the defendant's contention is that the Mercury was owned by the partnership and that Wyatt's authorized use of it was limited to partnership business in the local area and that this did not constitute "furnished for regular use" as defined in the policy. In support of this contention, defendant relies upon the cases in which employees of an insured or individuals were permitted limited use of automobiles in connection with their employment, or otherwise, of which Pacific Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 56 Cal.App.2d 597, 132 P.2d 846, is typical.2 There an employee, an automobile salesman, was permitted to use demonstrators of the agency which employed him. Some personal use was also permitted. The salesman obtained permission to use a demonstrator for a personal trip which had nothing to do with his employment. It was held that when an automobile was furnished exclusively for business purposes, it did not constitute "furnishing for regular use". There is little similarity in the facts of that case and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Ward
...359 U.S. 950, 79 S.Ct. 735, 3 L.Ed.2d 683 (1959); Voelker v. Travelers Indem. Co., 260 F.2d 275 (7th Cir. 1958); Wyatt v. Cimarron Ins. Co., 235 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956); Campbell v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 211 F.2d 732 (4th Cir. 1954); Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Violano, 123 F.2d 6......
-
Ricci v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...* furnished for the regular use of' the plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed. KELLEHER, J., did not participate. 1 Wyatt v. Cimarron Insurance Co., 235 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956); Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Marr, 128 F.Supp. 67 (D.N.J.1955); Aler v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 92 ......
-
Sperling v. Great Am. Indem. Co.
...Mut. Cas. Co. v. Pulsifer, D.C., 41 F.Supp. 249, 251; Campbell v. AEtna Cas. & Sur. Co., 4 Cir., 211 F.2d 732, 736; Wyatt v. Cimarron Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 235 F.2d 243, 246; Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 4 Cir., 259 F.2d 389, 393). While the insurer agre......
-
Whaley v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 313
...the regular use of the insured. (Citations) The purpose is not to insure more than one car on a single policy. ' Wyatt v. Cimarron Insurance Company, 10 Cir., 235 F.2d 243; Home Insurance Company v. Kennedy (Del.), 2 Storey 42, 152 A.2d In Campbell v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 4 Cir., ......