Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Mueller

570 F.2d 508
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 23, 1978
DocketNo. 77-1577
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 570 F.2d 508 (Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Mueller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Mueller, 570 F.2d 508 (4th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company issued a policy of insurance to Checker Cab Company of Virginia, Inc., which operates an Avis Rent-A-Car facility in Roanoke, Virginia.

A vehicle was rented from Avis by one Carrico under a contract which contained a provision that the vehicle “shall not be operated” “by any person other than the Renter or (1) the employer, partner, or an executive officer or regular employee of Renter or (2) any member of Renter’s immediate family at least 21 years of age and permanently residing in Renter’s household. . . . "

Carrico and a friend, Caviness, started for Pulaski from Roanoke for a date. Caviness drove, apparently at Carrico’s instance, or at least with his express consent and agreement. Caviness was neither Renter, employer, employee, partner, executive officer, or member of Carrico’s immediate family as mentioned in the contract between Avis and Carrico.

A wreck took place while Caviness was driving in which two hitchhiker passengers, the Muellers, were injured. The Muellers’ claim against Caviness and Carrico brought about this suit for a declaratory judgment on the question of the coverage afforded by Liberty Mutual to the estate of Caviness.

The district court held that, Caviness not being among those permitted by the contract between Carrico and Avis to operate the vehicle, his estate was not afforded coverage under the policy.1 In so doing, it correctly applied Virginia Code § 38.1-381 (the omnibus clause) and other applicable Virginia law. Harsh as the result may seem to be, as was also recognized by the district court, because of the contract between Avis and Carrico, we are of opinion there is no error in the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Teddy E. Mueller
570 F.2d 508 (Fourth Circuit, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
570 F.2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-mutual-insurance-v-mueller-ca4-1978.