William Talasek v. The Travelers Fire Insurance Co.

Fifth Circuit

William Talasek v. The Travelers Fire Insurance Co.

242 F.2d 748, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2854

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1957

Docket16313_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 F.2d 748 (William Talasek v. The Travelers Fire Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Talasek v. The Travelers Fire Insurance Co., 242 F.2d 748, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2854 (5th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

This action was upon a policy whereby the appellee insured the appellant against loss of an automobile by “theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage.” The car had been owned by Auto Dealers Auction, Inc. of Kansas City, Missouri, which had agreed to sell it to one Hermansen through whom the appellant ultimately obtained possession. Auto Dealers Auction, Inc. still retains the Missouri certificate of title to the car, Hermansen having failed to pay the draft for its purchase price to which draft the certificate of title had been attached. Without any process, Auto Dealers Auction, Inc. had the car picked up on the streets of Rosenberg, Texas, where appellant had left it. Later, the appellant was fully informed of the circumstances of the taking and invited to litigate the title by sequestering the car or by means of a declaratory judgment action. He declined to do so, and instead sued on his automobile theft policy.

The case was tried to the court without a jury. The able and patient district judge made full findings of fact and conclusions of law from which he concluded that the appellant had no title and further:

“I further conclude that the repossession of the automobile by Auto Dealers Auction, Inc., under the circumstances discussed by this record was not a ‘theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage’ within the terms of the policy issued by defendant. Auto Dealers Auction, Inc., was the owner of the automobile and was entitled to its possession, but in any event the taking of possession was under a bona fide claim of ownership by Auto Dealers Auction, Inc., which was not covered by the policy.”

Whether it was the legal owner or not, and however highhanded and reprehensible may have been its conduct in repossessing the automobile without process, it seems to us too clear to warrant discussion that such conduct of Auto Dealers Auction, Inc. did not amount to “theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage.” 1 The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. National Bond & Investment Co. v. Great National Lloyds, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W.2d 322; Burnaman v. State, 330 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 94 S.W.2d 751; Bigus v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co., 145 Mo.App. 170, 129 S.W. 982; Bush v. Boston Ins. Co., 88 Misc. 48, 150 N.Y.S. 457; Durback v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Corporation, 17 N.J.Super. 160, 85 A.2d 315; 5 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice 356, Sec. 3211; 6 Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice 314, Sec. 3711.

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

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

This action was upon a policy whereby the appellee insured the appellant against loss of an automobile by “theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage.” The car had been owned by Auto Dealers Auction, Inc. of Kansas City, Missouri, which had agreed to sell it to one Hermansen through whom the appellant ultimately obtained possession. Auto Dealers Auction, Inc. still retains the Missouri certificate of title to the car, Hermansen having failed to pay the draft for its purchase price to which draft the certificate of title had been attached. Without any process, Auto Dealers Auction, Inc. had the car picked up on the streets of Rosenberg, Texas, where appellant had left it. Later, the appellant was fully informed of the circumstances of the taking and invited to litigate the title by sequestering the car or by means of a declaratory judgment action. He declined to do so, and instead sued on his automobile theft policy.

The case was tried to the court without a jury. The able and patient district judge made full findings of fact and conclusions of law from which he concluded that the appellant had no title and further:

“I further conclude that the repossession of the automobile by Auto Dealers Auction, Inc., under the circumstances discussed by this record was not a ‘theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage’ within the terms of the policy issued by defendant. Auto Dealers Auction, Inc., was the owner of the automobile and was entitled to its possession, but in any event the taking of possession was under a bona fide claim of ownership by Auto Dealers Auction, Inc., which was not covered by the policy.”

Whether it was the legal owner or not, and however highhanded and reprehensible may have been its conduct in repossessing the automobile without process, it seems to us too clear to warrant discussion that such conduct of Auto Dealers Auction, Inc. did not amount to “theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage.” 1 The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. National Bond & Investment Co. v. Great National Lloyds, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W.2d 322; Burnaman v. State, 330 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 94 S.W.2d 751; Bigus v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co., 145 Mo.App. 170, 129 S.W. 982; Bush v. Boston Ins. Co., 88 Misc. 48, 150 N.Y.S. 457; Durback v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Corporation, 17 N.J.Super. 160, 85 A.2d 315; 5 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice 356, Sec. 3211; 6 Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice 314, Sec. 3711.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F.2d 748, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-talasek-v-the-travelers-fire-insurance-co-ca5-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack