From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aetna Casualty v. State Farm Mutual

Supreme Court of Virginia
Jun 14, 1971
181 S.E.2d 614 (Va. 1971)

Summary

voiding exclusion in a garage insurance policy because it was inconsistent with the Omnibus Clause

Summary of this case from Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Oak Ridge Imports Inc.

Opinion

42511 Record No. 7496.

June 14, 1971

Present, Snead, C.J., I'Anson, Gordon, Harrison, Cochran and Harman, JJ.

Uninsured Motorist Insurance — Primary Coverage — Rented Car.

Excess coverage provision excluding uninsured motorist coverage if other valid and collectible insurance is in force is invalid in policy issued on rented car.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Carroll County. Hon. Jack M. Matthews, judge presiding.

Affirmed.

John B. Spiers, Jr. (Spiers, Spiers Mink, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

Stuart B. Campbell, Jr. (Campbell Campbell, on brief), for defendants in error.


State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") brought this action against Aetna Casualty and Surety Company ("Aetna") seeking a declaratory judgment that a policy issued by Aetna, and not a policy issued by State Farm, provided primary indemnity to Richard Dale Porter for his liabilities arising out of an automobile accident.

Before the accident Porter took his car to Mink Motor Sales, Inc. ("Mink") for repairs and rented a car from Mink to use while his car was being repaired. The accident happened while Porter was driving the rented car. Aetna had issued to Mink a garage policy excluding coverage if other valid and collectible insurance was in force.

State Farm had issued to Porter an automobile liability policy providing only excess coverage for a temporary substitute automobile or non-owned automobile.

The trial court held that Aetna's policy provided primary coverage to Porter and State Farm's policy provided only excess coverage. Aetna appeals, contending that paragraph (a3) of Code Sec. 38.1-381, which was enacted in 1968 after our decision in American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Kaplan, 209 Va. 53, 161 S.E.2d 675 (1968), validates the provision of its policy that excluded coverage to Porter.

Paragraph (a3) of Code Sec. 38.1-381 relates, however, to "insurance . . . against liability arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle in the business of selling, repairing, servicing, storing or parking motor vehicles" (emphasis supplied). Since Mink rented the car involved in the accident to Porter, paragraph (a3) does not apply. Under our holding in American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Kaplan, the exclusion in the Aetna policy is invalid.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Aetna Casualty v. State Farm Mutual

Supreme Court of Virginia
Jun 14, 1971
181 S.E.2d 614 (Va. 1971)

voiding exclusion in a garage insurance policy because it was inconsistent with the Omnibus Clause

Summary of this case from Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Oak Ridge Imports Inc.
Case details for

Aetna Casualty v. State Farm Mutual

Case Details

Full title:AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE…

Court:Supreme Court of Virginia

Date published: Jun 14, 1971

Citations

181 S.E.2d 614 (Va. 1971)
181 S.E.2d 614

Citing Cases

Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Oak Ridge Imports Inc.

See § 38.2-2204(D). See also Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 212 Va.…