Trinity Universal Insurance v. National American Insurance

SHINN, P. J. The present action by Trinity Universal Insurance Company against National American Insurance [812]Company and others is for declaratory relief. The principal facts are that plaintiff issued to Miles P. Shook its comprehensive general liability policy covering a Cadillac automobile owned by Shook, which was in force, on August 6, 1958, when Wayne T. Williams, operating the Cadillac, with the consent of Shook, was involved in an accident in which the property of Charles W. Turner was injured. Claims for damages are asserted against Shook.

Shook in good faith had sold and delivered possession of the car to Williams before the accident occurred. The sole factual question at the trial was whether he had done all that was required of him under the Vehicle Code in order to be relieved of liability for the negligence of Williams.

If Shook was the owner of the ear he would be equally responsible with Williams for the negligence of the latter, his liability, however, being limited in amount. (Veh. Code, §§ 17150-17151.) Having in good faith sold and delivered the Cadillac to Williams, Shook could have relieved himself of civil liability for the operation of the car in either of two ways, (1) by delivering to Williams the certificate of ownership properly endorsed and the certificate of registration, or, (2) by delivering to the Department of Motor Vehicles or placing in the mail addressed to the department a notice giving the date of the sale, his own name and address and that of the transferee with a description of the vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 5602.) Shook did not mail a notice to the department. The court found that prior to the accident he had not delivered the certificate of ownership to Williams, although he had delivered it to one Troutman. The; sole question on the appeal is whether there was substantial evidence to support that finding. Instead of a finding of the ultimate fact of ownership the court made extensive, probative findings. The essential findings were that Williams and Troutman were constructing a ketch as a joint venture; before the boat was finished they sold and delivered possession of it to Shook; this was by written agreement and through escrow; the entire subject of the joint venture was the construction . of the boat; the sale of the boat disposed of all of the joint venture property; the consideration paid by Shook was divided between Troutman and Williams; the sale ended the joint venture and neither Troutman nor Williams thereafter was the agent of the other; when Shook endorsed and deliv- ■ ered the certificate of ownership of the Cadillac to Troutman