Home/Oregon Supreme Court/Farmers Mutual Insurance v. United Pacific Insurance

Farmers Mutual Insurance v. United Pacific Insurance

292 P.2d 492, 206 Or. 298, 1956 Ore. LEXIS 354
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 25, 1956
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 P.2d 492 (Farmers Mutual Insurance v. United Pacific Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farmers Mutual Insurance v. United Pacific Insurance, 292 P.2d 492, 206 Or. 298, 1956 Ore. LEXIS 354 (Or. 1956).

Opinion

PERRY, J.

This is a suit for contribution. The plaintiff Farmers Mutual Insurance Company issued its policy of automobile insurance to one Rudolph F. Moltz, an employee of the Don Meurs Logging Company, upon a one-half ton Ford truck used by Moltz solely for his convenience in going to and from his employment, and not as an accessory for the use of his employer.

On June 13,1951, the Don Meurs Logging Company, while engaged in its logging activities, needed additional chokers in its work, and asked Mrs. Rena Y. Meurs, the wife of Donald Meurs, to drive to Portland to secure this equipment. Mr. Moltz volunteered the use of his motor vehicle for the purpose of this errand, [300]*300and the parties agree that no cash or other consideration was to be paid Moltz for the use of the truck. While in Portland, Mrs. Meurs was involved in an accident, and the plaintiff as a result of this accident was required to pay the sum of $2,000.

At the time of the accident the defendant had in full force and effect its motor vehicle insurance policy insuring the Don Meurs Logging Company for liability for bodily injury and property damage caused in the operation of a Mack log truck and a Paige & Paige log trailer. Attached to the policy as a part thereof were the following endorsements:

“HIRED AUTOMOBILE ENDORSEMENT
“It is agreed that such insurance as is afforded by the policy for Bodily Injury Liability and for Property Damage Liability applies with respect to hired automobiles, subject to the following provisions :
“1. Definitions. The words ‘hired automobile’ shall mean a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer used under contract in behalf of the named insured provided such auto- ■ mobile is not owned in full or in part by or registered in the name of (a) the named insured or (b) an executive officer or partner thereof or (c) an employee or agent o.f the named insured who is granted an operating allowance of any sort for the use of such automobile. The word ‘automobile’ whenever used in the policy, with respect to the insurance afforded under this endorsement, shall include ‘hired automobile.’
‘ ‘ 2. Application of Insurance.
“ (a) The Definition of ‘Insured’ agreement of the policy applies to the insurance afforded under tlds endorsement except to [301]*301the owner of the automobile or any employee of such owner.
“ (b) The insurance applies to the maintenance or use, for the purposes stated in the schedule forming a part hereof, of any hired automobile.
“3. Premium. The premium basis for this insurance is cost of hire. The premium stated in the declarations is an estimated premium only. Upon termination of the policy the earned premium for this insurance shall be computed in accordance with the company’s rules, rates, rating plans, premiums and minimum premiums applicable to this insurance. If the earned premium thus computed exceeds the estimated advance premium paid for this insurance, the named insured shall pay the excess to the company; if less, the company shall return to the named insured the unearned portion paid by such insured. When used as a premium basis the words ‘cost of hire’ shall mean the amount incurred for hired automobiles, including remuneration of the named insured’s chauffeurs employed in the operation of such automobiles. The named insured shall maintain records of the information necessary for premium computation on the basis stated in the schedule, and shall send copies of such records to the company at the end of the policy period and at such times during the policy period as the company may direct.
“4. Inspection and Audit. The company shall be permitted to inspect the insured automobiles and to examine and audit the insured’s books and records at any time during the policy period and any extension thereof and within one year after the final termination of the policy, as far as they relate to

[302]

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

Related

Harold A. Miller v. National Farmers Union Property And Casualty Company
470 F.2d 700 (Eighth Circuit, 1973)
Miller v. National Farmers Union Property
470 F.2d 700 (Eighth Circuit, 1972)
Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Un. Pac. Ins.
292 P.2d 492 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 P.2d 492, 206 Or. 298, 1956 Ore. LEXIS 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-mutual-insurance-v-united-pacific-insurance-or-1956.