Universal Indemnity Insurance v. Gore
This text of 50 P.2d 1149 (Universal Indemnity Insurance v. Gore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
A proceeding in garnishment.
It appears that one Morgan, driving a car rented from Hertz Driv-ur-self System, Inc., so negligently operated it that defendant in error was given judgment against him for damages. On review the judgment was affirmed. Morgan v. Gore, 96 Colo. 508, 44 P. (2d) 918. Subsequent to the judgment, plaintiff in error, insurer of the Hertz System, was garnished, and on trial was adjudged to pay Gore, judgment creditor in the principal action, the sum of his recovery against Morgan. Error is assigned.
*517 We think the matter is controlled by Universal Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Tenery, 96 Colo. 10, 39 P. (2d) 776, where on facts substantially as here, the identical plaintiff in error, contending as to its liability on the same policy, was held to be liable in garnishment. There is not need that we add to the exhaustive exposition in the Tenery case. It is informative to say that the item of punitive damages, rejected there, is not present here.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
50 P.2d 1149, 97 Colo. 516, 1935 Colo. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/universal-indemnity-insurance-v-gore-colo-1935.