Phoenix Insurance v. Glens Falls Insurance

253 F. Supp. 1015, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8084
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedFebruary 1, 1966
DocketCiv. A. No. 64-34
StatusPublished

This text of 253 F. Supp. 1015 (Phoenix Insurance v. Glens Falls Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Phoenix Insurance v. Glens Falls Insurance, 253 F. Supp. 1015, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8084 (M.D. Fla. 1966).

Opinion

GEORGE C. YOUNG, District Judge.

THIS ACTION was instituted by the Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, a Connecticut corporation (hereafter “Phoenix”) against Glens Falls Insurance Company, a New York corporation (hereafter “Glens Falls”) and Kenneth R. Wiekhorst (hereafter “Wiekhorst”).

The action was for declaratory and other relief. The essential controversy was the extent of the liability, if any, of each of the two insurance companies, Phoenix and Glens Falls, to defend and indemnify the third Defendant, Wiekhorst, because of an accident in which Wiekhorst was involved in the State of Mississippi on or about December 16, 1962, when his 1960 Ford truck, which was pulling a horse trailer with horses, was involved in a collision with two other vehicles.

At the time of the collision in question, each of the said insurance companies had in effect insurance policies insuring Wiekhorst. The insurance policy of Glens Falls was a Comprehensive General Liability and fleet motor vehicle policy, which had been executed and delivered in Omaha, Nebraska. In that policy the business or occupation of Wiekhorst was stated to be “Excavation Contractor”. It included schedules of certain specifically listed vehicles, including both tractors, trucks and trailers. Neither the truck which Wiekhorst was driving at the time of the collision, nor the trailer which was being towed behind this truck, was specifically named or listed in the policy.

The policy issued by Phoenix had been issued in the State of Florida, and specifically insured the truck being driven by Wiekhorst at the time of the collision. Phoenix contended however, that because of an exclusion, its policy did not cover [1017]*1017or insure Wiekhorst in connection with this particular casualty.

Wiekhorst and Glens Falls disagreed, with Phoenix and took the position that the policy of Phoenix did in fact insure Wiekhorst and was the primary coverage. Glens Falls took the position that its policy did not cover the automobile or the trailer, as they were not listed in its policy and were garaged principally in the State of Florida where the truck involved in the accident was licensed and registered, and were being used in a different business enterprise.

Wiekhorst asserted that he was entitled to insurance under one or the other or both of these policies, and in addition to seeking affirmative relief against the insurers, he also made a claim for statutory attorney fees pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 627.0127, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

The Court is advised that Phoenix settled certain claims asserted against Wiekhorst, having expended approximately $45,000.00 for that purpose, and that other claims which resulted in Final Judgments against Wiekhorst have been paid and satisfied by Phoenix, subject to a reservation of rights and without prejudice.

Various discovery depositions were taken, Interrogatories and Requests to Admit and Admissions filed with the Court, certain Affidavits filed with the Court and each party moved for Summary Judgment.

It was agreed by counsel for all parties, that all the facts relevant to the questions of insurance coverage were undisputed and fully established by the evidence before the Court, making a formal trial unnecessary as to these questions. Only questions of law were open for decision. The Court therefore now makes the following findings of undisputed facts and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

Wiekhorst had for some years been engaged in business in and around Omaha, Nebraska, as an excavation contractor. In connection with this business he owned certain motor vehicles and trailers, most of which were specifically insured under the policy of Glens Falls at issue here.

However, he also owned in Nebraska, a private passenger motor vehicle insured under an entirely different policy. Wiekhorst also owned a small utility type trailer which he sometimes used in his excavation business in Nebraska. Ordinarily, when using this trailer he would either pull it behind the pickup truck or behind a private passenger automobile.

Prior to the events in question, Wiekhorst purchased certain ranch lands in the State of Florida and began devoting a portion of his time to raising horses on this ranch. In connection with his ranch in Florida and for use in Florida, Wiekhorst acquired a 1958 Ford truck. Wiekhorst intended to use this truck exclusively in Florida in connection with his ranching activities there. Needing insurance on it, however, he consulted his insurance agent in Omaha, Nebraska, a Mr. Patterson, who had executed and delivered the Glens Falls policy.

It was suggested by Patterson that it would be more convenient for Wiekhorst to take out insurance in the State of Florida on this vehicle. It was not the intention of Patterson as agent of Glens Falls Insurance Company or of Wiekhorst that this truck be insured under the existing Glens Falls policy.

Wiekhorst took the truck to Florida where he had the title registered and he contacted the Beardsley-Nash Insurance Agency in Clewiston, Florida, and through that agency secured an automobile liability insurance policy covering that truck. This policy was Wiekhorst’s first Florida automobile policy, and was written for a policy period from February 23, 1959 to February 23, 1960, and the insurance company issuing the policy was St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

While this policy was in effect, Wiekhorst sold the 1958 Ford truck and purchased the 1960 Ford C-600 truck involved in this collision. Although Wiekhorst [1018]*1018purchased this truck in Nebraska, he had the title registered in Florida and promptly removed the vehicle to Florida. Thereafter, he had his Florida policy amended to substitute the 1960 Ford C-600 truck in lieu of the 1958 Truck. This was accomplished by Beardsley-Nash Agency through an endorsement effected November 11, 1959. On this policy, Wiekhorst’s address was given as Clewiston, Florida, and his occupation that of a “Rancher”.

On the anniversary date of this policy, the Beardsley-Nash Insurance Agency issued to Wiekhorst a renewal policy with St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company covering the same vehicle and extending coverage from February 23, 1960 to February 23,1961. In this policy the purposes of use of the truck was stated to be: “Commercial”. On February 23, 1960, the policy as originally written with St. Paul was amended by endorsement to change the premium basis from its prior premium rating to “Class 6 (Farmer)”.

For a period of time because of his business commitments elsewhere, Wiekhorst did not use this Florida truck and left it uninsured. Subsequently, however, becoming again active in his Florida activities, he requested Beardsley-Nash Agency once again to insure the said truck. At this time the Beardsley-Nash Agency was no longer authorized to write policies with St. Paul, and accordingly that agency wrote the new policy, effective July 1, 1962, to July 1, 1963, with Phoenix.

On this policy as issued and delivered, Wiekhorst’s business was shown to be “Farming; pony ranch”. The policy also showed that the premium rating classification was Class 6. Under this policy, Mr. Wiekhorst was covered by bodily injury liability to the extent of $100,000.00 for each person and $300,000.00 for each accident.

In the printed portions of the policy, under “Exclusions” this policy stated:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 F. Supp. 1015, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-insurance-v-glens-falls-insurance-flmd-1966.