Marple v. American Automobile Insurance

California Court of Appeal Apr 1, 1927 No. Docket No. 5789.Published

Before: Koford

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an insurance carrier is liable for damages resulting from a minor's negligence where the insured parent signed the minor's license application, as such liability is created by statute rather than by contract. Furthermore, the court held that an injured party may maintain a direct action against the insurer upon securing a judgment against the insured, regardless of the insured's insolvency.

Issues

Whether a parent's statutory liability for a minor's negligent driving constitutes a liability assumed by contract under an insurance policy exclusion.
Whether an injured party's right to sue an insurance carrier directly is contingent upon proving the insolvency of the insured.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We therefore hold that the appellant is liable under the terms of its policy even though the policy contained the provision that it should not cover liability assumed by the assured under any contract or agreement.”

“The statute and the rider state two independent propositions connected by a conjunction (which we have italicized above), both of which are required.”

[138]

KOFORD, P. J.

Respondents first recovered judgment against Jay H. Merrill for the death of their son, Robert, Jr., caused by the negligent operation of an automobile in which he was riding while driven by the son of said Merrill. An execution on said judgment having been returned unsatisfied, respondents next commenced this action against appellant, the insurance carrier for said Merrill. Judgment was for respondents against the appellant insurance company.

Appellant claims first that the record in the first suit against Merrill shows that the judgment against him was not given upon the theory of

respondeat superior,

but because of a liability assumed by Merrill by contract in and by his signing the application of his minor son to obtain an operator’s license to drive the automobile. We shall treat the point as though the judgment was not based upon the doctrine of

respondeat superior.

The policy of insurance insured said Merrill, section II, “Against direct loss and expense arising or resulting from claims upon the assured for damages by reason of the ownership, maintenance, manipulation or use of (the automobile in question) ... if such claims are made on account of (Clause A) “Bodily injuries or death accidentally suffered by any person or persons ... as the result of an accident occurring while this policy is in force ...”

One of the limitations (No. 20) of this policy provided that such insurance “ . . . does not cover against claims arising under any Workmen’s Compensation agreement plan or law . . . ; nor for the liability of others assumed by the assured under any contract or agreement.” Jay H. Merrill signed the application of his son for an operator’s license as required by section 24, chapter 147, Statutes of 1919, at page 223, then in force. The statute does not prescribe any particular form for the applicant for a license to sign. It does not prescribe any contract nor formula of words for the parent of a minor to sign. But it is declared unlawful for a parent to knowingly permit his child to drive a motor vehicle without having obtained a license. It is provided that no license shall be granted to a minor unless the parent shall have joined in the application by signing the same, and finally that the negligence of the minor shall be imputed to the one so joining, who is declared to be

Marple v. American Automobile Insurance

AI Brief

KOFORD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief