Mann v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance

Utah Supreme Court

Mann v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance

382 P.2d 884, 14 Utah 2d 282, 1963 Utah LEXIS 204

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 28, 1963

DocketNo. 9831

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 382 P.2d 884 (Mann v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mann v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance, 382 P.2d 884, 14 Utah 2d 282, 1963 Utah LEXIS 204 (Utah 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Chief Justice.

Appeal from a no cause of action judgment at pretrial where the parties stipulated that Mann’s deposition was the only evidence in the case. Affirmed. Costs to' defendant.

Plaintiff had a policy that provided two-things germane to this case: 1) To pay for damage arising out of operation of the-insured’s car or “any nonowned automobile” which means 2) “an automobile * * not owned or furnished for the regular use of the * * * insured, * * * other than a temporary substitute automobile.”

The conceded evidence showed that plaintiff used his cousin’s truck to haul hay for the latter’s horses, and to go to work whenever he wished. He had access to the truck at times when it was not being utilized by his cousin, the key being left in the ashtray for his use. This custom had persisted for at least 6 months to a year, and plaintiff’s insured car was available at this time for himself and/or his wife.

[283]*283We think the quoted excerpts from the plaintiff’s policy were designed to protect him at times when, for some reason or another, his own insured car was inoperable, and further, that reflective of his own statements in the deposition, his use of the truck either was a "regular” use or one to benefit someone else than himself, which, on either basis, would not lead to insurability of his ■own car or person under the plain implications of the policy even conceding its terms ■construable more favorably to the assured.

McDonough, callister, crock-ETT and WADE, JJ., concur.

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

HENRIOD, Chief Justice.

Appeal from a no cause of action judgment at pretrial where the parties stipulated that Mann’s deposition was the only evidence in the case. Affirmed. Costs to' defendant.

Plaintiff had a policy that provided two-things germane to this case: 1) To pay for damage arising out of operation of the-insured’s car or “any nonowned automobile” which means 2) “an automobile * * not owned or furnished for the regular use of the * * * insured, * * * other than a temporary substitute automobile.”

The conceded evidence showed that plaintiff used his cousin’s truck to haul hay for the latter’s horses, and to go to work whenever he wished. He had access to the truck at times when it was not being utilized by his cousin, the key being left in the ashtray for his use. This custom had persisted for at least 6 months to a year, and plaintiff’s insured car was available at this time for himself and/or his wife.

[283]*283We think the quoted excerpts from the plaintiff’s policy were designed to protect him at times when, for some reason or another, his own insured car was inoperable, and further, that reflective of his own statements in the deposition, his use of the truck either was a "regular” use or one to benefit someone else than himself, which, on either basis, would not lead to insurability of his ■own car or person under the plain implications of the policy even conceding its terms ■construable more favorably to the assured.

McDonough, callister, crock-ETT and WADE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 P.2d 884, 14 Utah 2d 282, 1963 Utah LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-preferred-risk-mutual-insurance-utah-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack