Buchheim v. Firemen's Insurance

285 F. Supp. 333, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9174
CourtDistrict Court, D. Vermont
DecidedMarch 8, 1968
DocketCiv. A. No. 5013
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 F. Supp. 333 (Buchheim v. Firemen's Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Buchheim v. Firemen's Insurance, 285 F. Supp. 333, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9174 (D. Vt. 1968).

Opinion

STATEMENT OF THE CASE, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT ORDER

GIBSON, Chief Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case is an action for a declaratory judgment brought by Richard Buchheim, of New York, -plaintiff and Rosalie E. McGrath, of Vermont, Administratrix of the Estate of John C. McGrath, and plaintiff, against the defendant, Firemen’s Insurance Company, an insurance company incorporated under the laws of New Jersey. This action is brought to determine whether Firemen’s Insurance Company has a duty to defend Richard Buchheim in another pending action brought against him in this Court by Rosalie E. McGrath, as Administratrix of the Estate of John C. McGrath.

The other action brought by Rosalie E. McGrath as Administratrix alleges that Richard Buchheim, on April 18, 1966, while driving a 1960 Dodge sedan in the City of Burlington, Vermont negligently hit and ran down John C. McGrath and thereby caused his wrongful death. The car driven by Mr. Buchheim was owned by Al-Martin Motors, Inc., an auto dealer incorporated under the laws of the State of Vermont. At the time of the accident Al-Martin Motors was the insured under a comprehensive business policy with Firemen’s Insurance Company and a part of this policy covered liability incurred through the operation of automobiles. The question presented [334]*334in this case is simply whether Mr. Richard Buchheim is an insured under the policy held by Al-Martin Motors with Firemen’s Insurance Company.

Counsel for the plaintiffs point to certain terms of Al-Martin’s policy to support their request to hold Firemen’s under a duty to defend Buchheim. The theory, offered by Rosalie E. McGrath, is that under the terms of the policy held by Al-Martin Motors, Inc., Buchheim was an insured because the Dodge sedan had been furnished by Al-Martin for the regular use of Richard Buchheim. To support this theory the plaintiffs cite endorsement CBP 529, paragraph 1(4) which provides coverage to certain insureds as follows:

“With respect to an automobile to which the insurance applies under paragraph (b) of the Automobile Hazard, any person while using such automobile with the permission of the person or organization to whom such automobile is furnished, provided such person’s actual operation or (if he is not operating) his other actual use thereof is within the scope of such permission.”

Endorsement 506, Garage Liability contains the definition of Automobile Hazard paragraph (b) referred to in the foregoing. The initial declaration of this endorsement applies the full limits of the liability coverage of the policy to this hazard.

“Automobile hazard” includes

“(b) the ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile owned by the named insured in connection with garage operations while furnished for the use of * * * (ii) any other person or organization to whom the named insured furnished automobiles for their regular use.”

The plaintiffs contend that these two sections provide coverage to Mr. Buchheim if (1) the car owned by Al-Martin Motors was furnished for Mr. Buchheim’s regular use and (2) the use of the auto was with the permission of Al-Martin Motors and was within the scope of such permission.

As to this theory the defendant makes a factual objection saying in effect that the car in question was not furnished for the regular use of Mr. Buchheim and if so his use thereof was without the scope of permission given by Al-Martin Motors, Inc. Evidence was received on this point with the defendant drawing the Court’s attention to the provisions of CBP 529, 1(3) (b) which provide coverage “to any other person, but only if no other valid and collectible automobile liability insurance, either primary or excess, with limits of liability at least equal to the minimum limits specified by the financial responsibility law of the state in which the automobile is principally garaged is available to such person.” The defendant contends that if Richard Buchheim was not afforded coverage on the grounds that he was not furnished regular use of the auto, then he was “any other person” referred to above. Because he had his own liability policy at the time of the accident, the defense contends that he is not covered by the Firemen’s policy. The effect of the above provision is to limit the coverage provided those to whom Al-Martin loaned cars for other than the borrower’s regular use (in other words, to occasional users). In such a case, “occasional” borrower would only be covered when he did not have his own liability insurance at least equal to the minimum of the state financial responsibility law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Court finds that Richard Buchheim is a citizen of New York, that Rosalie E. McGrath, Administratrix of the Estate of John C. McGrath, is a resident of Vermont, and that Firemen’s Insurance Company is a corporation existing under the laws of New Jersey. The Court finds that there is diversity present.

2. The Court finds that Al-Martin Motors, Inc. is a corporation existing under the laws of Vermont with its main [335]*335place of business in Burlington, Vermont; that on April 18, 1967 it was a party to an insurance contract between itself and Firemen’s Insurance Company [Policy #CBP 50399] and that a part of said contract covered liability arising from the use and operation of automobiles in the business in which Al-Martin Motors was engaged.

3. The Court finds the following to be provisions contained in the policy: CBP 500A;

“Comprehensive Automobile Liability
Declarations
1. The insurance afforded under this endorsement is only with respect to such and so many of the following coverages as are indicated by a limit of liability. The limit of the company’s liability against each such coverage shall be as stated herein, subject to all the terms of this endorsement having reference thereto.
Coverages Limits of Liability
A. Bodily Injury Liability $25,000. each person

$50,000. each accident”

CBP 506
“Garage Liability
It is agreed that such insurance as is afforded by Part V of the policy for Bodily Injury Liability and for Property Damage Liability applies to the hazards defined below, subject to the following provisions :
A. Hazards Defined
Garage Operations Hazard
The ownership, maintenance or use of the premises for the purposes of a garage and all operations necessary or incidental thereto, hereinafter called “garage operations”, including the
Automobile Hazard
(a) the ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile for the purpose of garage operations, and the occasional use for other business purposes and the use for non-business purposes of any automobiles owned by or in charge of the named insured and used principally in garage operations;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
334 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 F. Supp. 333, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchheim-v-firemens-insurance-vtd-1968.