Sumida v. Pacific Automobile Insurance

California Court of Appeal Apr 27, 1942 No. Civ. No. 13396Published

Before: McComb

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the insurer was not liable for the judgments because the insured vehicle was being used to carry persons for a consideration at the time of the accident, which triggered an express exclusion clause in the insurance policy. The court further held that the trial court properly excluded evidence where no offer of proof was made and properly denied impeachment evidence for failure to lay a proper foundation.

Issues

Was it error to grant a directed verdict based on the policy's exclusion for carrying persons for a consideration?
Was the truck being used for a permissible business use under the policy?
Did the trial court err in sustaining objections to certain questions and an offer of proof for impeachment?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The undisputed evidence as set forth above was susceptible of only one interpretation and that was that Mr. Meno was receiving 10 cents per person for the transportation of the parties at the time the accident occurred”

“The exclusion clause of the policy was clear and free from ambiguity and under the undisputed facts as set forth above the accident occurred under conditions which excluded it from the terms of the policy”

McCOMB, J. From a judgment predicated upon the granting of defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in an [474]action brought pursuant to the provisions of section 11580, subdivision b(2) of the Insurance Code, for the purpose of compelling defendant to pay unsatisfied judgments previously recovered against the alleged insured of defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs (appellants), as we must in reviewing a judgment based on a directed verdict (In re Lances’ Estate, 216 Cal. 397, 400 [14 P. (2d) 768]), the material facts are:

Plaintiffs Sumida, Ishizuba, Shimono, Ishikawa, and Harada recovered a judgment for personal injuries received while they were riding in an automobile owned by K. Meno. Plaintiff Matsumoto as the administrator of the estate of S. Hatakeyama, deceased, also recovered a judgment for the wrongful death of Mr. Hatakeyama, who died as a result of injuries received in the same accident which resulted in injuries to the other plaintiffs in the present suit. At the time of the accident the injured parties were being transported in a pick-up truck owned by Mr. Meno from the fields where they had been working to the camp where they were living.

Executions on the judgments were issued and returned unsatisfied, and the present litigation was then instituted.

May 12, 1937, defendant issued an insurance contract to K. Meno and/or T. Ishibashi covering the automobile in which the injured plaintiffs and Mr. Hatakeyama, deceased, were riding at the time of the aforementioned accident. This policy contained, among other provisions the following:

“The Company does hereby agree with the Assured named in the Declarations made a part hereof, in consideration of the premium hereinbefore provided, as respects accidents occurring during the period of this Policy, by reason of ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile described in said Declarations, only while within the limits of the United States (exclusive of Alaska, the Hawaiian, Philippine and Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, Porto Rico, and other possessions) and Canada, including while on coastwise steamer between ports within said limits, subject however, to the conditions, limitations and exclusions contained in this Policy, as follows:

“Clause A. Legal Liability for Bodily Injuries or Death :

Sumida v. Pacific Automobile Insurance

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief