MooRe, J.
The question for determination here is: Was there coverage under either of the policies with respect to the accident of 1.1 August, 1957?
The appellant, Nationwide, requested the Judge to find in substance as follows:
That the 1954 Ford acquired 27 July, 1957, replaced the State Farm Ford, which up to the time oí the replacement had been principally used by Ralph Neal Shaffer; that the 1954 Ford after its acquisition was used in the same manner 'and for the same purposes by Ralph Neal Shaffer as he had previously used the State Farm Ford; that the 1954 Ford did not replace .tire Nationwide Ford, which was principally used by Will Shaffer prior to the acquisition of the 1954 Ford; that the 1954 Ford was not used iby Will Shaffer in the same manner he had used the Nationwide Ford, but that after the acquisition of tire 1954 Ford the State Farm Ford was used by Will Shaffer; that Ralph Neal Shaffer was the owner of the 1954 Ford.
With respect to these matters the court found as a fact -that Will Shaffer was the sole owner of the 1954 Ford and owner of all the vehicles described from time to time in the policies of State Farm andi Nationwide; that after February, 1956, Will Shaffer did not own more than .two automobiles at any one time; that the 1954 Ford and all the vehicles named in the policies from time to time were under the personal control of Will Shaffer as to their manner, method and time of use, and such use of said vehicles as was made by Ralph Neal Shaffer was with the permission of Will Shaffer, including the use of the 1954 Ford at the time of the accident; and that the 1954 Ford did not replace the State Farm Ford but did replace the Nationwide Ford.
The evidence was sharply conflicting and there were glaring contradictions in the pleadings, statements 'and testimony of Will Shaffer and Ralph Neal Shaffer. There was competent evidence to support the request of Nationwide for findings and competent evidence to support the court’s findings of fact. “Where facts are found by the court, if supported by competent evidence, such findings are as conclusive as the verdict of a jury.”
Goldsboro v. R. R.,
246 N.C. 101, 107, 97 S.E. 2d 486, and cases 'there cited.
Notwithstanding the findings of fact, it may be conceded that Ralph Neal Shaffer as a rule used the better of 'the two cars owned by his father — the Nationwide oar prior to the purchase of the 1954 Ford, and the 1954 Ford after its acquisition. On occasions the Shaffers used the cars interchangeably. This Court is not a fact-finding 'body, but the foregoing facts are assumed to be true so far as this opinion is concerned.
The policy by Nationwide provides coverage for a “newly acquired automobile.” A newly acquired automobile is .defined by the. policy to mean “an automobile ownership of which is
acquired
by the named
insured . . . if it
replaces
an automobile owned by (named insured) and covered by this policy . . .” (Emphasis and parentheses ours).
■ The policy issued by State Farm provides coverage for an “automobile . . . ownership of . . . which is
acquired
by the 'named -insured during the policy period, provided it
replaces
á described automobile . .(Emphasis ours).
In this case the question -of notice of replacement does not arise.
The'appellant insists that the question as to which automobile, if either, was replaced by the 1954 Ford is one -of fact to be gathered from the intent -and acts of the insured and his son. W-e hold that it is a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court has found the facts and his findings are binding on this Court.
Bizzell v. Bizzell,
247 N.C. 590, 101 S.E. 2d 668. The interpretation of the policy provisions, in the light of the facts found, is a matter of law for the court, and in construing the contract its unambiguous terms are to be taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.
Stanback v. Insurance Co.,
220 N.C. 494, 17 S.E. 2d 666.
The exact question involved here has not previously been decided by this Court. It will be observed that both policies of insurance in this case provide that a replacement -automobile must be
acquired
and
replace
an automobile owned by the insured and covered by the policy.
In a Kentucky case the insurer -issued -a liability policy -on a Studebaker. At that time the insured owned a Ford which was not covered by the policy. The Ford had no motor in it -at the time. Later the insured put >a new motor in the Ford, -after which time the Studebalcer quit running 'and was never operated again. Insured then used the Ford -and had an accident in which -three persons were injured. He immediately notified the insurer of the accident. The Court held that there was no coverage on the Ford. While there was a question of notice -of replacement involved, the Count -said: “In this -instance appellant’s Ford oar was not 'newly acquired’ but was owned by him long before he took out insurance -on the Studebalcer. . . . (C) ertainly it was within the contemplation of -the parties that the replacement must be a car the insured would acquire in the future and not one he owned at the time the policy was issued to him.”
Brown v. Insurance Co.
(Ky. 1957), 306 S.W. 2d 836.
In
Insurance Co. v. Produce Co.
(M.D. Tenn. 1940), 42 F. Supp. 31, insured purchased a truck and obtained liability coverage at the time of the purchase. The truck was excluded from a renewal policy because it was not in operating condition. It w-as placed back in service as a replacement for an insured truck withdrawn from service, -and was involved in -an -accident in wh-i-ch four persons were killed and one
injured. The Court held that there was no coverage. The Court said: “The Court is of the opinion that ¡the International Tractor not being a newly acquired automobile, was not covered under the automatic clause in the policy, . . . (A)nd that by reason ¡of the fact that the ownership of the International tractor . . . was not newly acquired ownership, within the contemplation .of the automatic clause in the policy, that ¡clause did not operate to place said International tractor within the terms and ¡provisions of the policy in question, andi hence that clause did not apply to the International tractor.”
In
Insurance Co. v. Wilson
(Okla. 1952), 251 P. 2d 175, the insured obtained liability coverage on a 1947 Chevrolet track. At that time he owned ¡also a 1948 Chevrolet track which was nob covered. The 1948 Chevrolet track was involved in an accident. At the time of the accident the 1947 truck was not in use. In a per curiam .opinion the Court held that, since insured owned the 1948 truck at the time the policy was issued on ¡the 1947 track, it could not have been a newly acquired vehicle under the terms of the policy.
In substantial accord are:
Howe v. Crumley Co.
(Ohio, 1944), 57 N.E. 2d 415;
Mitcham v. Indemnity Co.
(C.C.A. 4th, 1942), 127 F. 2d 27;
Insurance Co. v. Nelson
(Wash. 1957), 306 P. 2d 201;
Lease Co. v. Insurance Co.
(Utah 1958), 325 P. 2d 264.
Appellant cites
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MooRe, J.
The question for determination here is: Was there coverage under either of the policies with respect to the accident of 1.1 August, 1957?
The appellant, Nationwide, requested the Judge to find in substance as follows:
That the 1954 Ford acquired 27 July, 1957, replaced the State Farm Ford, which up to the time oí the replacement had been principally used by Ralph Neal Shaffer; that the 1954 Ford after its acquisition was used in the same manner 'and for the same purposes by Ralph Neal Shaffer as he had previously used the State Farm Ford; that the 1954 Ford did not replace .tire Nationwide Ford, which was principally used by Will Shaffer prior to the acquisition of the 1954 Ford; that the 1954 Ford was not used iby Will Shaffer in the same manner he had used the Nationwide Ford, but that after the acquisition of tire 1954 Ford the State Farm Ford was used by Will Shaffer; that Ralph Neal Shaffer was the owner of the 1954 Ford.
With respect to these matters the court found as a fact -that Will Shaffer was the sole owner of the 1954 Ford and owner of all the vehicles described from time to time in the policies of State Farm andi Nationwide; that after February, 1956, Will Shaffer did not own more than .two automobiles at any one time; that the 1954 Ford and all the vehicles named in the policies from time to time were under the personal control of Will Shaffer as to their manner, method and time of use, and such use of said vehicles as was made by Ralph Neal Shaffer was with the permission of Will Shaffer, including the use of the 1954 Ford at the time of the accident; and that the 1954 Ford did not replace the State Farm Ford but did replace the Nationwide Ford.
The evidence was sharply conflicting and there were glaring contradictions in the pleadings, statements 'and testimony of Will Shaffer and Ralph Neal Shaffer. There was competent evidence to support the request of Nationwide for findings and competent evidence to support the court’s findings of fact. “Where facts are found by the court, if supported by competent evidence, such findings are as conclusive as the verdict of a jury.”
Goldsboro v. R. R.,
246 N.C. 101, 107, 97 S.E. 2d 486, and cases 'there cited.
Notwithstanding the findings of fact, it may be conceded that Ralph Neal Shaffer as a rule used the better of 'the two cars owned by his father — the Nationwide oar prior to the purchase of the 1954 Ford, and the 1954 Ford after its acquisition. On occasions the Shaffers used the cars interchangeably. This Court is not a fact-finding 'body, but the foregoing facts are assumed to be true so far as this opinion is concerned.
The policy by Nationwide provides coverage for a “newly acquired automobile.” A newly acquired automobile is .defined by the. policy to mean “an automobile ownership of which is
acquired
by the named
insured . . . if it
replaces
an automobile owned by (named insured) and covered by this policy . . .” (Emphasis and parentheses ours).
■ The policy issued by State Farm provides coverage for an “automobile . . . ownership of . . . which is
acquired
by the 'named -insured during the policy period, provided it
replaces
á described automobile . .(Emphasis ours).
In this case the question -of notice of replacement does not arise.
The'appellant insists that the question as to which automobile, if either, was replaced by the 1954 Ford is one -of fact to be gathered from the intent -and acts of the insured and his son. W-e hold that it is a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court has found the facts and his findings are binding on this Court.
Bizzell v. Bizzell,
247 N.C. 590, 101 S.E. 2d 668. The interpretation of the policy provisions, in the light of the facts found, is a matter of law for the court, and in construing the contract its unambiguous terms are to be taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.
Stanback v. Insurance Co.,
220 N.C. 494, 17 S.E. 2d 666.
The exact question involved here has not previously been decided by this Court. It will be observed that both policies of insurance in this case provide that a replacement -automobile must be
acquired
and
replace
an automobile owned by the insured and covered by the policy.
In a Kentucky case the insurer -issued -a liability policy -on a Studebaker. At that time the insured owned a Ford which was not covered by the policy. The Ford had no motor in it -at the time. Later the insured put >a new motor in the Ford, -after which time the Studebalcer quit running 'and was never operated again. Insured then used the Ford -and had an accident in which -three persons were injured. He immediately notified the insurer of the accident. The Court held that there was no coverage on the Ford. While there was a question of notice -of replacement involved, the Count -said: “In this -instance appellant’s Ford oar was not 'newly acquired’ but was owned by him long before he took out insurance -on the Studebalcer. . . . (C) ertainly it was within the contemplation of -the parties that the replacement must be a car the insured would acquire in the future and not one he owned at the time the policy was issued to him.”
Brown v. Insurance Co.
(Ky. 1957), 306 S.W. 2d 836.
In
Insurance Co. v. Produce Co.
(M.D. Tenn. 1940), 42 F. Supp. 31, insured purchased a truck and obtained liability coverage at the time of the purchase. The truck was excluded from a renewal policy because it was not in operating condition. It w-as placed back in service as a replacement for an insured truck withdrawn from service, -and was involved in -an -accident in wh-i-ch four persons were killed and one
injured. The Court held that there was no coverage. The Court said: “The Court is of the opinion that ¡the International Tractor not being a newly acquired automobile, was not covered under the automatic clause in the policy, . . . (A)nd that by reason ¡of the fact that the ownership of the International tractor . . . was not newly acquired ownership, within the contemplation .of the automatic clause in the policy, that ¡clause did not operate to place said International tractor within the terms and ¡provisions of the policy in question, andi hence that clause did not apply to the International tractor.”
In
Insurance Co. v. Wilson
(Okla. 1952), 251 P. 2d 175, the insured obtained liability coverage on a 1947 Chevrolet track. At that time he owned ¡also a 1948 Chevrolet track which was nob covered. The 1948 Chevrolet track was involved in an accident. At the time of the accident the 1947 truck was not in use. In a per curiam .opinion the Court held that, since insured owned the 1948 truck at the time the policy was issued on ¡the 1947 track, it could not have been a newly acquired vehicle under the terms of the policy.
In substantial accord are:
Howe v. Crumley Co.
(Ohio, 1944), 57 N.E. 2d 415;
Mitcham v. Indemnity Co.
(C.C.A. 4th, 1942), 127 F. 2d 27;
Insurance Co. v. Nelson
(Wash. 1957), 306 P. 2d 201;
Lease Co. v. Insurance Co.
(Utah 1958), 325 P. 2d 264.
Appellant cites
Casualty Co. v. Lambert
(N.H. 1940), 11 A. 2d 361. We do not ¡agree that this ¡case supports ¡appellant’s position. In this case the insured car was worn out, but ¡still in the possession of the insured. He purchased another car to replace it. Here the Court held that there was a replacement. This case seems to support the decisions above cited. If not, we are not disposed to ¡adopt it as ¡authority in this ¡case.
It is our opinion that the replacement vehicle is one the ownership of which has been acquired after the issuance of 'the policy and during the ¡policy period, and it must replace the car described in the policy, which must be disposed ¡of or be incapable of further ¡service ¡at the time of the replacement.
Casually Co. v. Lambert, supra.
We hold ¡that the State Farm Ford could not be a replacement for the Nationwide Ford. At the 'beginning of the policy period of .the Nationwide policy Shaffer owned both automobiles. On 11 August, 1957, date o.f the accident, the State Farm Ford was still owned by Shaffer and under his control, in operating condition and being driven ¡by him and his son. It was then covered by the State Farm policy. Therefore the 1954 Ford could not replace the State Farm Ford, since Shaffer still retained the State Farm Ford in operable condition.
The 1954 Ford was a newly acquired ¡automobile. It was purchased
by Will Shaffer on 27 July, 1957. The Nationwide Eordi was used as a “trade in” on the 1954 Ford, and was replaced by .the 1954 Ford.
In
Kaczmarck v. La Perriere
(Mich. 1953), 60 N.W. 2d 327, insured on 23 August, 1947, secured liability coverage on a Packard for one year. On 18 November, 1947, he traded the Packard for an Oldsmobile but never -attempted to make the insurance cover tire Oldsmobile. On 22 June, 1948, insured traded the Oldsmofoile for a Pontiac and asked for transfer of coverage. The Pontiac was in an accident on 8 July, 1948. The Court held that the Pontiac replaced the Packard notwithstanding the intervening of the Oldsmobile between the two.
The obligation of Nationwide in the instant case is the same as if the 1954 Ford had been described in its policy.
The fact that the premium was paid under a 1-B rating does not affect its obligation under the policy. In
Varble v. Stanley
(Mo.), 306 S.W. 2d 662, 665, it was said: “If the insurer intended to exclude or limit its liability in instances of operation by a male member of the household under twenty-five years of age, it could and should have said so in plain 'and explicit language. And we will not adopt a construction which will imply such exclusion from language which would amount to the planting of a forfeiture in ambush.” A 2-A rating does not confer upon the driver any additional right or extend the coverage of the policy in any way.
Farmer v. Casualty Co.
(C.C.A. 4th 1957), 249 F. 2d 185.
Appellant made 31 assignments of error. We have carefully examined and considered each of them. No prejudicial error has been made to appear. When parties waive a jury trial “the rules of evidence as to admission and exclusion are not so strictly enforced as in a jury trial. ... (I)t is presumed that incompetent evidence was disregarded by the Court in making up its decision.”
Bizzell v. Bizzell, supra.
As we have already stated, -the findings of fact by Judge Froneberger are supported by competent evidence. Proper principles of law have been applied by the Judge.
Affirmed.