State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Royal Indemnity Co.

374 F. Supp. 495, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8877
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia
DecidedApril 23, 1974
DocketCiv. A. No. 71-164-CH
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 374 F. Supp. 495 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Royal Indemnity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Royal Indemnity Co., 374 F. Supp. 495, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8877 (S.D.W. Va. 1974).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER

K. K. HALL, District Judge.

This is a declaratory judgment action in which separate motions have been filed by plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and defendant Royal Indemnity Company for summary judgments absolving them of uninsured motorist coverage liability under automobile insurance policies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Defendants Dean Hubbard and James E. Lane .in this action are plaintiffs in two separate actions in the Court of Common Pleas of Kanawha County, West Virginia, in which they seek to recover damages claimed to have resulted from automobile injuries inflicted on them on September 12, 1968, by a Ford station wagon operated by defendant James B. Recknagel but owned by and insured in the name of Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation. At the time of the injuries claimed by Hubbard and Lane, Royal had in effect an automobile liability insurance policy, including uninsured motorist provisions, on the Ford station wagon operated by Recknagel but owned by Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation. At that time State Farm had in effect an automobile liability policy, including uninsured motorist provisions, on an automobile owned by Hubbard and another automobile liability policy, including uninsured motorist provisions, on an automobile owned by Jean Lane, the wife of defendant Lane herein. The three automobile insurance policies have been filed as a part of the record in the action.

The-.parties have filed a stipulation of facts detailing the automobile insurance policy coverages, the claimed injuries giving rise to the two actions pending in the state court, and other facts, including the following stipulation that defendant Recknagel was at the time here involved operating the Ford station wagon on a mission outside the scope of the business of the insured, Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation:

“At the time of said accident the defendant James B. Recknagel was using said automobile for the purpose of obtaining a shipment of shortening to be used by him in his own private business entitled the Kanawha Valley Potato Chip Company without the actual knowledge of his employer, Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation.”

The stipulated status of defendant Recknagel at the time of the accident is confirmed by Recknagel’s deposition taken incident to the action of defendant Lane pending in the state court and brought into the record in this action by an affidavit filed with and in support of Royal's motion for summary judgment.

The separate motions for summary judgment by State Farm and Royal are supported by affidavits that the respective insurers were not given written notice of the accident “as soon as practicable” as required by the three insurance policies. These facts and details are not controverted by defendants Hubbard, Lane and Recknagel. Rule 56(e) provides in part:

“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set [497]*497forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.”

Upon the record before the Court, including the pleadings, stipulation of counsel, affidavits in support of the motions for summary judgment, and the deposition of defendant, James Benjamin Reeknagel, in Civil Action No. 15.864- C pending in the Common Pleas Court of Kanawha County, West Virgina, and made a part of the record in this action, and in consideration of the presentations and arguments of counsel, the Court finds and concludes:

1. Two civil actions for recovery of damages for injuries claimed to have been received by James E. Lane and Dean Hubbard on or about September 12, 1968, were filed on January 20, 1970, and are pending in the Common Pleas Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, against James B. Reeknagel as defendant. Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation was also named as defendant but in each of the actions, Civil Action No. 15.864- C (Lane) and Civil Action No. 15.865- C (Hubbard) said Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation, has been dismissed as a party defendant.

2. At the time of the injuries claimed by plaintiffs in said two civil actions, defendant James B. Reeknagel was a salaried employee of Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation and was in charge of and was driving a motor vehicle owned by said Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation or its parent company. The motor vehicle at the time was covered by a comprehensive automobile liability insurance policy issued by Royal Indemnity Company, a defendant in this action. At the time defendant Recknagel was not working for Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation. He was using the motor vehicle on his own mission and for his own business operated as a corporation under the name of Kanawha Valley Potato Chip Company. He was not acting as the agent or employee of Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation and was using the motor vehicle without the actual knowledge of Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation.

3. At the time of the claimed injuries State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, plaintiff in this action, had in effect an automobile liability policy, including uninsured motorist coverage, issued to Dean Hubbard, a defendant herein, and another automobile insurance policy, including uninsured motorist coverage, issued to Jean Lane, wife of James E. Lane, defendant herein. Each of State Farm’s policies contains the following policy conditions and provisions:

“1. Notice of Accident, Occurrence or Loss. In the event of an accident, occurrence or loss, written notice shall be given by or on behalf of the insured to the company or any of its authorized agents as soon as practicable. Such notice shall contain particulars sufficient to identify the insured, and also reasonably obtainable information respecting the time, place, circumstances of the accident or occurrence, names and addresses of injured persons and available witnesses. In the event of theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage prompt notice also shall be given to the police.”

State Farm’s affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment herein avers that it did not receive notice in the Hubbard case until approximately 7 months after the accident in question and that it received notice of the claim in the Lane ease approximately 15 months after the accident. The record discloses that in the Lane case a copy of the summons and complaint was served on State Farm, through the Auditor of the State of West Virginia, on December 1, 1970, and in the Hubbard case on January 27, 1971. W.Va.Code, § 33-6-31(d).

4. Royal, general liability insurer of the Dan Dee West Virginia Corporation vehicle driven by defendant Reeknagel, in support of its motion for summary [498]*498judgment, presents two affidavits averring that it had no notice of the injury claims until the two civil actions were filed in the Common Pleas Court of Kanawha County on January 20, 1970.

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

Related

Miller v. Dilts
463 N.E.2d 257 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 F. Supp. 495, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-royal-indemnity-co-wvsd-1974.