Grant v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York

California Supreme Court Jun 28, 1938 No. L. A. 16604Published

Before: Shenk

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An insurer that repudiates liability and refuses to provide policy terms to a claimant is estopped from asserting a policy provision requiring a final judgment as a condition precedent to filing suit.

Issues

Whether an action on an indemnity policy is premature when filed before a final judgment against the insured if the insurer previously repudiated liability and withheld policy terms.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing an amendment to the complaint to allege the finality of the underlying judgment.
Whether evidence supported findings that the policy coverage transferred to a new vehicle and that the driver had implied consent to operate it.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is a well-recognized rule, which we conclude is applicable to the special circumstances here, that the insurer may not repudiate the policy, deny all liability, and at the same time be permitted to stand on a provision inserted in the policy for its benefit.”

SHENK, J.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action on a policy of indemnity insurance issued to Thomas T. Harbeson and Mariam Harbeson.

The policy was issued in 1931 to the Harbesons, husband and wife, when they were the owners of a Studebaker automobile. The policy by its terms bound the defendant to indemnify the named assureds and any person who might drive the automobile with their consent, against liability up to $25,000 on account of injuries sustained by other persons through their operation of the car. In July, 1932, the Harbesons sold the Studebaker and bought a Chrysler automobile. Herndon Ryon was the minor brother of Mariam Harbeson and lived with the Harbesons. He frequently drove their car for them and at times operated it himself for his own purposes when it was not otherwise in use. On October 7, 1932, while Herndon Ryon was driving the Chrysler and was its sole occupant, he collided with Minnie Grant, the plaintiff herein, and caused injuries to her person. Minnie Grant brought an action against Thomas T. Harbeson, Herndon Ryon, and the latter’s father, for damages. In July, 1934, she recovered a judgment for approximately $6,775 and costs. Before the trial Thomas T. Harbeson died, and judgment was entered against Herndon Ryon and his father for the amount recovered. The defendants in that action prosecuted an appeal which terminated in an affirmance of the judgment in January, 1936.

(Grant

Ryon,

11 Cal. App. (2d) 101 [53 Pac. (2d) 170].) Prior to the time the judgment in that action became final and in November, 1934, Minnie Grant commenced the present action. During the trial and by leave of court the plaintiff filed an amendment to her complaint alleging the affirmance of the judgment in the case of

Grant

Ryon, supra.

Judgment in the present action was rendered for the plaintiff.

[440]

On this appeal it is contended by the defendant that the court erred in permitting the amendment to the complaint. The defendant relies on numerous authorities, such as

Grant v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York

AI Brief

SHENK, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief