Martin v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Martin v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Opinion

 [*15]  On March 23, 1967, appellant secured from appellee, defendant below, a family automobile and comprehensive liability policy. The automobile liability insurance covered one car owned by appellant, a 1963 Dodge. The following clause in the policy governed coverage of subsequently acquired automobiles:

"'owned automobile' means * * *.

(c) a private passenger, farm or utility automobile ownership of which is acquired by the Named Insured during the policy period, provided * * *.

(2) the Company insures all private passenger, farm and utility automobiles owned by the Named Insured on the date of such acquisition and the Named Insured notifies the Company during the policy period or within 30 days after the date of such acquisition of his election to make this and no other policy issued by the Company applicable to such automobile * * *.

(d) * * *

'private passenger automobile' means a four wheel private passenger station wagon or jeep type automobile;

'farm [**2]  automobile' means an automobile of a truck type with a load capacity of fifteen hundred pounds or less not used for business or commercial purposes other than farming;

'utility automobile' means an automobile, other than a farm automobile, with a load capacity of fifteen hundred pounds or less of the pick-up body, sedan delivery or panel truck type not used for business or commercial purposes. * * *"

In early spring of 1967, appellant traded a dog for a frame and drive train of a jeep. Subsequent barters produced enough parts to construct a moveable vehicle that appellant drove around the pasture, but not on public highways. Sensing a potential trade, appellant purchased a license plate for the "jeep" and traded it for a 1953 Ford pickup truck. On October 27, 1967, eight days after the trade, appellant was involved in an accident with Sharon Geisler Composky. Appellant sued. Mrs. Composky counterclaimed. Appellant demanded that appellee-insuror provided a defense to Composky's counterclaim. Appellee refused, and appellant brought this action for a declaratory judgment to determine appellee's obligation under the policy.

 [*16]  The trial judge, sitting without [**3]  a jury, found that the "jeep," although "inoperable" and "not road operable," was nevertheless an automobile within the contract provision set forth above. The court cited Williams v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, 1958, 158 Cal.App.2d 506, 322 P.2d 1026 in support of this conclusion. Since the "jeep" had not been insured with appellee, the court reasoned that the truck acquired by appellant was not a replacement of an insured vehicle, and the truck was not acquired at a time when all of appellant's automobiles were insured by appellee. Thus appellee insurance company was held not liable to appellant under the policy.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.