Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Hunefeld

230 Cal. App. 2d 31, 40 Cal. Rptr. 659
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 29, 1964
DocketCiv. 10738
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 230 Cal. App. 2d 31 (Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Hunefeld) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Hunefeld, 230 Cal. App. 2d 31, 40 Cal. Rptr. 659 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

PIERCE, P. J.

Plaintiff, “Underwriters,” sought and obtained a declaratory judgment holding their indemnity insurance policy issued to defendants, owners of a drag racing strip, did not, because of exclusions set forth, cover a certain accident causing bodily injuries to one Phillip Gregg.

The policy excludes indemnity for owners’ liability for bodily injuries to participants, racing officials, pitmen, mechanics and certain others, but this exclusion does not apply when such persons are “outside of the racing arena proper and . . . not participating in the actual racing operations in the capacities described.’’ Also excluded are “accidents occurring in areas known as Pit Areas.” 1

On evidence, an analysis of which shows no substantial conflict, the trial court found that Gregg at the time of the accident which caused his injuries was within the exclusions of the policy (1) a “Mechanic . . . participating in racing operations” and (2) that this was an accident within the category “accidents occurring in areas known as “Pit Areas.’ ” Our interpretation of the policy on these facts compels us to reach the opposite conclusion.

Understanding of the facts and problems will be facilitated by a description of the automobile drag racing premises. The sketch attached, which is a facsimile of part of Defendants’ Exhibit “A” (the origin of which will be more fully explained hereinafter) will be an additional aid. [See following page.]

Defendants own what is known as “Kingdon Air Strip” in San Joaquin County. It is used for drag racing. It includes *35 a racing strip 150 feet (10 lanes) wide and 4,220 feet long, extending north and south. Bleachers for spectators are located on both sides of the track. Also on each side is a parking area for spectators’ automobiles adjoining the bleachers. Barriers consisting of posts connected by cables along both sides of the track separate it from the areas just described to the east and west. The track area is divided into four segments which from south to north are a “build up” area 750 feet long where cars await their turn to race, the area between a “preparation line” and a starting line 150 *36 feet long, the racing area 1,320 feet long, and a “slow down area” 2,000 feet long.

On the west side of the track behind the barrier described and at the point of the starting line is a timing stand occupied during the races by the timing officials. It is flanked on the south by a concession stand and on the north by the west-side bleachers mentioned above. Just beyond these bleachers to the north is the west-side parking area.

Participants race against time. After completing a run they proceed along a track called a “return road” westerly and thence southerly along the west boundary of the premises. If work is required to be done on the cars before their next performance, such as tuning up, changing tires, spark plugs, etc., an area formally described as a “pit area” is provided for that purpose. On the attached map it is the area shown by hatched lines in the southwest portion of the premises. Cars which do not require such servicing go to the build-up area awaiting their next turn and sometimes also mingle with spectators’ cars in the parking area on the west side of the track. On the day of this accident work was being performed on some of these participating cars so parked.

Persons arriving at the track, usually in automobiles, paid an admission. Payment of a general admission fee would give access to a seat in the bleachers on the east side of the track with adjoining parking. To entitle patrons to go to the west side an additional fee for a so-called “pit pass” was charged. Eligibility for a pit pass was not restricted to participants and personnel connected with racing. Any spectator desiring to view the race from that side and willing to pay the additional fee could do so, using the west-side bleachers and parking area.

On April 7, 1957, defendant Phillip Gregg went with his brother to the track in the latter’s automobile. His brother was to be a participant; Phillip who knew nothing about drag racing was there only as a spectator. He and his brother bought pit passes and went to the west-side area. The brother engaged in two or three time trials and Phillip watched him, apparently from the west-side bleachers. After each trial the brother drove his ear to the west-side parking area.

After the latest of these trials the brother decided to remove the manifold of his engine, purposing thereby to get more acceleration speed. He asked Phillip to assist him by *37 jacking up the car preliminary to the manifold removal. At that time the vehicle was parked in the west-side parking area with other cars parked alongside on both sides. The front of the car was 10 to 15 feet from and behind the post and cable barricade lining the west side of the track. It was 15 to 20 feet north of the west-side bleachers. With Phillip on his hands and knees preparatory to applying the jack to raise the brother’s car, a racing car on the track went out of control, crashed through the described barrier and struck Phillip, pinning him beneath both cars. He was seriously injured.

Phillip brought suit against defendants Hunefeld as owners of the premises, alleging their negligence. 2 This action was commenced during the pendency of that litigation. After the trial court’s judgment in the case at bench, plaintiff Underwriters withdrew their defense of the Gregg-Hunefeld action. The Hunefelds then effected a settlement with Gregg.

Important in the interpretation of the policy here involved is the meaning of the phrase “pit area.” It is not defined anywhere therein. In explanation of its intended meaning defendants produced as a witness Elmer G. Seemann, an insurance broker. He had obtained the policy under litigation and earlier policies for the Hunefelds and Valley Drag and Auto Pacing, Inc. His negotiations were with George S. McDowell of Sacramento, the representative of Underwriters in the area. (His name as Underwriters’ authorized representative is in the policy.) Seemann testified that when the first (1955) policy was issued both insurer and insured desired to have the “pit area” fixed, since it was undefined in the policy. McDowell had written to Seemann indicating what should be included. Seemann consulted with Hunefeld and with George Cress, Hunefeld’s manager. Seemann took notes based upon his conversations with McDowell, Hunefeld and Cress. These notes and two preliminary sketches are a part of Defendants’ Exhibit “A.” On one of them is this statement: “In pit area—just sign and keep people out by policing of members of association—” Below this is: “Pit *38 Area. Danger—Keep Out. Contestants only allowed in this area.” (Italics supplied.) A letter was then written to McDowell, dated May 7, 1955. It enclosed a map drawn by Seemann. This is the map we have attached. The letter states inter alia-.

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

Related

Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Lee Raceway, Inc.
311 A.2d 307 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1973)
Dart Transportation Service v. MacK Trucks, Inc.
9 Cal. App. 3d 837 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Hertzka & Knowles v. Salter
6 Cal. App. 3d 325 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Crawford v. Lloyds London
275 Cal. App. 2d 524 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
Pacific Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
269 Cal. App. 2d 793 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
Valdez v. Interinsurance Exch. of Auto. Club of S. Cal.
246 Cal. App. 2d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
O'DOAN v. Insurance Co. of North America
243 Cal. App. 2d 71 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Benton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
241 Cal. App. 2d 768 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 Cal. App. 2d 31, 40 Cal. Rptr. 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underwriters-at-lloyds-of-london-v-hunefeld-calctapp-1964.