From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. Wells

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Jun 5, 1964
380 S.W.2d 75 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964)

Summary

In Wells, a car owner brought his car into a mechanic's shop, the owner and the mechanic together worked on welding a new tailpipe onto the car, and the car caught fire and was destroyed.

Summary of this case from West American Ins. Co. v. Prewitt

Opinion

June 5, 1964.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Johnson County, W.D. Sparks, J.

J.K. Wells, Paintsville, for appellant.

R.B. Harrington, Paintsville, for appellee.


This is an appeal from a judgment determining that the appellant insurer is liable under a policy insuring appellee against loss from liability for damage to property from the operation of appellee's business. The policy excluded from its coverage "property in the care, custody or control of the insured or property as to which the insured for any purpose is exercising physical control." The single question presented is whether an automobile owned by David Estepp, at the time it caught on fire, was in the care, custody or control of the appellee within the meaning of the exclusionary provision.

The case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts from which it appears that David Estepp drove his automobile into appellee's garage and employed him to weld a tailpipe assembly to the frame of his car. When appellee's employee, Denver Stapleton, informed Estepp it was not accepted practice to do this, Estepp insisted the work be done in this manner. Estepp held the tailpipe assembly while Stapleton did the welding. The use of the welding equipment in some way set the automobile on fire. Estepp jumped into the car and drove it outside the garage where it continued to burn. Estepp sued appellee for damages to his automobile and the appellant refused to defend the action relying on the exclusionary clause of the insurance policy. Trial resulted in a judgment in favor of Estepp and appellee subsequently filed this action.

In American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa. v. Pearson, 7 Utah 2d 37, 317 P.2d 954, a customer's automobile was damaged by fire while it was located and being repaired in the insured's garage. The policy contained an exclusionary provision identical with the one in the instant case. The Supreme Court of Utah, in affirming a judgment of nonliability under this policy, stated that the real test in determining liability under it was whether the insured had control over the car while it was being repaired. The court specifically said it could "see nothing in this case with respect to the care, custody or control of the car that negatived an ordinary bailment, where, for the purpose, and for a good consideration, an artisan is permitted to perform repairs." This view is supported by the following cases: Guidici v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co., 79 Cal.App.2d 128, 179 P.2d 337; Vaughan v. Home Indemnity Co., 86 Ga. App. 196, 71 S.W.2d 111; Lyon v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 140 Conn. 304, 99 A.2d 141.

We conclude that at the time the Estepp car caught fire it was in the control of appellee under the usual garage bailment arrangement and thus the exclusion in the policy involved herein is applicable.

The judgment is reversed with directions to enter a new one in accordance with this opinion.


Summaries of

United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. Wells

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Jun 5, 1964
380 S.W.2d 75 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964)

In Wells, a car owner brought his car into a mechanic's shop, the owner and the mechanic together worked on welding a new tailpipe onto the car, and the car caught fire and was destroyed.

Summary of this case from West American Ins. Co. v. Prewitt
Case details for

United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. Wells

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES FIDELITY GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Russell D.WELLS…

Court:Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Date published: Jun 5, 1964

Citations

380 S.W.2d 75 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964)

Citing Cases

West American Ins. Co. v. Prewitt

Three Kentucky cases have dealt with somewhat similar provisions, and none lead the Court to any conclusion…

Ronalco, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co.

Home Insurance argues, and the trial court and Court of Appeals agree, that under these circumstances the…