Potomac Insurance Company v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company

188 F. Supp. 218
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedOctober 24, 1960
Docket38408
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 188 F. Supp. 218 (Potomac Insurance Company v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Potomac Insurance Company v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 188 F. Supp. 218 (N.D. Cal. 1960).

Opinion

ROCHE, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief adjudging that it is not legally obligated under a policy of insurance issued to defendant Marvin E. Mark, (1) to defend said Marvin E. Mark in actions brought by defendants Herman P. Over-devest and Beverly A. Due now pending, in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, and (2) to make payments under said policy to defendants herein in the-event that judgments are obtained in said actions before the Superior Court-

On January 23, 1959, an automobile-owned and driven by Hilda Koerber collided with an automobile occupied by defendants Herman P. Overdevest and Beverly A. Due. Marvin Mark was a passenger in the Koerber automobile. There is no evidence that he exercised any authority or control over Hilda Koerber or the manner in which she drove her automobile; in short, there is nothing in the record to suggest that he was anything more than a guest. Defendants’ suits in the Superior Court are based upon allegations that Marvin Mark negligently engaged in conduct which distracted Hilda Koerber’s attention from her driving chores, an issue irrelevant to the matter now before the court.

The insurance policy issued by plaintiff to Marvin Mark obligates the former to defend suits and pay damages arising out of the “maintenance or use” by the insured of any non-owned automobile. Defendants contend that the word “use” is ambiguous and may be extended to cover Marvin Mark’s situation in the Koerber automobile. It is the opinion of this court that no reasonable person could thusly construe the language of the policy; to do so would, in effect, extend its coverage to any situation wherein the insured is the occupant of an automobile. Clearly, this is neither the intended nor apparent meaning of the policy.

Counsel for plaintiff may prepare and file with the court a proposed judgment, consistent with the views herein expressed.

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

Related

Francis-Newell v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
841 S.W.2d 812 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hokanson
584 P.2d 1264 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1978)
Henigson v. Davis
305 So. 2d 86 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Polyak v. Israelson
348 F. Supp. 529 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)
Dunlap v. Maryland Casualty Co.
414 S.W.2d 397 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 F. Supp. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potomac-insurance-company-v-ohio-casualty-insurance-company-cand-1960.