LINDELL v RUTHFORD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14663 IN THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O PXNUWA F F 1979 JOHN LINDELL, JON D. VICHE, and ALASKA PACIFIC ASSURANCE COMPANY, an Alaska corporation, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, ROBERT E RUTHR)RD, . Defendant and Appellant and Third Party P l a i n t i f f , -VS- UNITED SEXVICES AUIWDBILE, Third Party Defendant. Appeal £ram: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B. M3Zlernan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, Montana Fdwin C. Daue argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Gary Chumrau argued, Missoula, Mntana Doug Austin, Superior, Mntana Suhnitted: Decided: Filed: IE 1973 June 7, 1979 AUG . * 9 C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by a n i n s u r e d u n d e r a g e n e r a l l i a b i l i t y a n d comprehensive p e r s o n a l i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y from a judgment i n f a v o r o f h i s i n s u r e r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f M i n e r a l County. The f a c t s i n d i c a t e t h a t on May 1 9 , 1977, J o s e p h Ruthf o r d , t h e s o n o f t h e named i n s u r e d R o b e r t R u t h f o r d , w a s d r i v i n g h i s f a t h e r ' s p i c k u p l o o k i n g f o r h o r s e s , some o f which w e r e owned by h i s f a t h e r . While s e a r c h i n g f o r t h e h o r s e s i n a n o f f - r o a d a r e a , t h e p i c k u p became s t u c k i n t h e mud. A l o g g i n g s k i d d e r w a s p a r k e d n e a r b y which, unknown t o t h e s o n , had been d r a i n e d o f o i l . The s o n s t a r t e d t h e s k i d d e r and moved i t n e a r t h e p i c k u p . Meanwhile, a t h i r d p a r t y had c o n t a c t e d t h e f a t h e r by CB r a d i o a n d t h e f a t h e r had a r r i v e d w i t h a l o g g i n g c h a i n . A t h i r d person a t t a c h e d t h e l o g g i n g c h a i n t o t h e p i c k u p and s k i d d e r . The f a t h e r s t o o d by and watched h i s s o n tow t h e p i c k u p o u t o f t h e mud. Thereafter, t h e son returned t h e skidder t o t h e p l a c e he o r i g i n a l l y found it. The e n g i n e o f t h e s k i d d e r was s e v e r e l y damaged b e c a u s e t h e r e was no o i l i n i t . The owners o f t h e s k i d d e r and t h e i r i n s u r e r f i l e d a damage a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r s e e k i n g r e c o v e r y o f r e p a i r c o s t s , l o s s of income a n d exemplary damages. answered denying l i a b i l i t y . The f a t h e r He a l s o f i l e d a t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t h i s i n s u r e r , U n i t e d S e r v i c e s Automobile A s s o c i a t i o n , which i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s a p p e a l . The f a t h e r ' s t h i r d - p a r t y complaint a l l e g e d i n substance t h a t any l i a b i l i t y on h i s p a r t t o t h e owners o f t h e s k i d d e r was c o v e r e d by h i s i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . Therefore, he alleged, h i s i n s u r e r w a s o b l i g a t e d t o d e f e n d t h e damage a c t i o n b r o u g h t a g a i n s t him and t o pay a n y damages r e c o v e r e d by t h e s k i d d e r ' s owners. F o l l o w i n g p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y , t h e i n s u r e r moved f o r summary judgment o n t h e f a t h e r ' s t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t on The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e b a s i s of p o l i c y e x c l u s i o n s . summary judgment t o t h e i n s u r e r and d i s m i s s e d t h e t h i r d p a r t y complaint. The f a t h e r a p p e a l s . A l t h o u g h t h e i s s u e s o n a p p e a l are s t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y by each p a r t y , t h e substance of t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i s whether t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y provides coverage under t h e f a c t s of t h i s case. The i n s u r e d f a t h e r c l a i m s c o v e r a g e u n d e r t h e omnibus i n s u r i n g a g r e e m e n t a n d d e f i n i t i o n s i n t h e p o l i c y and d e n i e s t h a t any p o l i c y e x c l u s i o n s e l i m i n a t e t h a t coverage. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e i n s u r e r claims a s p e c i f i c e x c l u s i o n i n t h e p o l i c y eliminates coverage. The c o m p l a i n t by t h e owners o f t h e s k i d d e r a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r a l l e g e s two b a s e s o f l i a b i l i t y : (1) t h a t t h e f a t h e r " c o o p e r a t e d w i t h , a s s i s t e d , and r a t i f i e d t h e a c t s o f h i s s o n " which b e n e f i t e d him by removing h i s p i c k u p from t h e mud, and ( 2 ) t h a t t h e s o n w a s a c t i n g a s a g e n t o f h i s f a t h e r s o t h a t t h e s o n ' s w r o n g f u l a c t s w e r e imputed t o h i s f a t h e r . The b a s i c i n s u r i n g a g r e e m e n t i n t h e p o l i c y p r o v i d e s : "The company w i l l pay o n b e h a l f o f t h e i n s u r e d a l l sums which t h e i n s u r e d s h a l l become l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o pay a s damages b e c a u s e o f b o d i l y and t h e company i n j u r y o r p r o p e r t y damage s h a l l have t h e r i g h t and d u t y t o d e f e n d any s u i t a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d s e e k i n g damages on a c c o u n t o f s u c h b o d i l y i n j u r y o r p r o p e r t y damage, e v e n i f the allegations of t h e s u i t a r e groundless, f a l s e o r fraudulent ... . . ." The p o l i c y d e f i n e s " p e r s o n s i n s u r e d " i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t as: "The named i n s u r e d a n d , i f r e s i d e n t s o f t h e named i n s u r e d ' s h o u s e h o l d , h i s s p o u s e , t h e r e l a t i v e s o f e i t h e r , and any o t h e r p e r s o n u n d e r t h e a g e o f 21 i n t h e care o f a n y i n s u r e d ; b u t ... w i t h r e s p e c t t o any v e h i c l e , n o t owned by any such i n s u r e d , o n l y w h i l e u s i n g o r having c u s t o d y o r p o s s e s s i o n of such vehicle w i t h t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e owner . . . . . ." The p o l i c y e x c l u s i o n on which t h e i n s u r e r r e l i e s p r o vides : " T h i s c o v e r a g e does n o t a p p l y : ... " ( j ) t o p r o p e r t y damage t o (2) property o c c u p i e d o r used by t h e i n s u r e d o r r e n t e d t o o r i n t h e c a r e , custody o r c o n t r o l of t h e insured o r as t o which t h e i n s u r e d i s f o r any p u r p o s e exercising physical control . . ." The f i r s t b a s i s o f l i a b i l i t y a l l e g e d by t h e s k i d d e r ' s owners a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r i s t h a t t h e f a t h e r c o o p e r a t e d w i t h , a s s i s t e d and r a t i f i e d t h e w r o n g f u l a c t s of h i s s o n . T h i s a l l e g a t i o n i s based upon t h e f a t h e r ' s p e r s o n a l wrongd o i n g r e n d e r i n g him a j o i n t t o r t f e a s o r w i t h h i s son. Ac- c o r d i n g l y , t h e f a t h e r a s t h e named i n s u r e d under t h e p o l i c y would b e c o v e r e d f o r h i s own wrongdoing u n l e s s t h e p o l i c y exclusion e l i m i n a t e s coverage. The s k i d d e r was n o t p e r s o n a l l y used by t h e f a t h e r , r e n t e d by him, i n h i s c a r e , c u s t o d y o r c o n t r o l , n o r was t h e f a t h e r exercising physical c o n t r o l over it. Thus t h e e x c l u - s i o n would n o t e l i m i n a t e c o v e r a g e f o r any p e r s o n a l wrongd o i n g by t h e f a t h e r . This b r i n g s us t o t h e crux of t h i s appeal. The second b a s i s of l i a b i l i t y a l l e g e d by t h e s k i d d e r ' s owners a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r i s t h a t h i s son was h i s a g e n t ; t h a t t h e s o n ' s w r o n g f u l a c t s a r e imputed t o t h e f a t h e r under t h e p r i n c i p l e o f r e s p o n d e a t s u p e r i o r ; and t h a t t h e f a t h e r i s l i a b l e by r e a s o n o f h i s s o n ' s wrongful a c t s . I t i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e s o n w a s a member of h i s f a t h e r ' s h o u s e h o l d , under t h e a g e o f 21, and i n t h e c a r e of h i s f a t h e r , t h e named i n s u r e d . T h i s would q u a l i f y t h e s o n as o n e o f t h e p e r s o n s i n s u r e d were i t n o t f o r t h e second c l a u s e i n t h a t p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n set f o r t h above, v i z . , r e s p e c t t o any . . . vehicle "but with n o t owned by a n y s u c h i n s u r e d , o n l y while using o r having custody o r possession of such . vehicle w i t h t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e owner . . ." . . It is a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e s o n was n o t u s i n g t h e s k i d d e r , n o r d i d h e have custody o r p o s s e s s i o n o f it, w i t h t h e permission of any o f i t s owners. Thus, t h e s o n i s n o t a n i n s u r e d u n d e r t h e f a c t s of t h i s case. Because t h e s o n i s n o t a n i n s u r e d u n d e r t h e p o l i c y , t h e c o v e r a g e e x c l u s i o n would n o t o r d i n a r i l y a p p l y . The e x c l u - s i o n a p p l i e s only t o property used, rented t o , i n t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y , o r c o n t r o l o f " t h e i n s u r e d " o r which " t h e i n s u r e d " i s f o r any purpose e x e r c i s i n g p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l . However, h e r e t h e i n s u r e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e s o n was h i s f a t h e r ' s a g e n t a n d t h e s o n ' s u s e , p o s s e s s i o n and p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l o f t h e s k i d d e r w e r e l e g a l l y t h o s e o f h i s f a t h e r who i s l i a b l e f o r h i s s o n ' s wrongful a c t s . The b a s i s o f t h i s contention i s t h e d o c t r i n e of respondeat s u p e r i o r o r t h e imputed l i a b i l i t y o f t h e p r i n c i p a l f o r t h e a c t s o f h i s agent. Hence, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n s u r e r , t h e p o l i c y e x c l u - s i o n becomes o p e r a t i v e and e l i m i n a t e s c o v e r a g e . W e have n o t p r e v i o u s l y d e c i d e d t h i s i s s u e . of o t h e r states are divided. The c o u r t s An example o f a c a s e h o l d i n g no e x c l u s i o n o f c o v e r a g e u n d e r s i m i l a r f a c t s i s t h e d e c i s i o n o f a n i n t e r m e d i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t o f Washington i n H o l t e r v . N a t i o n a l Union F i r e I n s u r a n c e Company ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 Wash.App. 46, 459 P.2d 61. T h e r e i t was h e l d t h a t b e c a u s e t h e p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n o f a n i n s u r e d d i d n o t i n c l u d e t h e employee who c a u s e d t h e damage, t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l e x c l u s i o n d i d n o t apply. The r e a s o n i n g of t h e Washington c o u r t was t h a t t h e provisions of an insurance p o l i c y should be i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e way i t would b e u n d e r s t o o d by t h e a v e r a g e man purchasing insurance. Hence, where t h e p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n o f " i n s u r e d " i n c l u d e d e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r s , d i r e c t o r s and s t o c k h o l d e r s b u t d i d n o t l i s t employees, t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y c l a u s e would b e i n t e r p r e t e d most s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r and c o v e r a g e would b e a f f o r d e d . An example o f a c o n t r a r y r e s u l t i s t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Oregon Supreme C o u r t i n C r i s t e t a l . v . Potomac I n s u r a n c e Company ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 243 O r . 254, 413 P.2d 407. There t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t " c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l " e x c l u s i o n a p p l i e d t o a n employee of t h e i n s u r e d r e l i e v i n g t h e i n s u r e r o f any d u t y t o d e f e n d t h e a c t i o n o r i n d e m n i f y t h e i n s u r e d i n t h e amount of t h e s e t t l e m e n t . The r e a s o n i n g o f t h e Oregon c o u r t was b a s e d on agency p r i n c i p l e s r e n d e r i n g t h e a c t s o f t h e employee t h o s e o f h i s employer, t h e i n s u r e d . W e hold t h a t t h e exclusionary c l a u s e does n o t e l i m i n a t e coverage here. The i n s u r e r h a s t h e d u t y t o d e f e n d and i n d e m n i f y t h e i n s u r e d f o r any damages f o r which t h e i n s u r e d i s l i a b l e within the policy l i m i t s . W e r e a c h t h i s r e s u l t by i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p o l i c y i n t h e way i t would b e u n d e r s t o o d by a n a v e r a g e man p u r c h a s i n g i n s u r a n c e . Holter, supra. An i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s a whole i n t h e e n t i r e t y o f i t s t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s . MCA. S e c t i o n 33-15-316 So c o n s t r u e d , t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e p o l i c y i s ambiguous a s applied t o the f a c t s of t h i s case. I n such case t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e i n s u r e d s h o u l d b e a d o p t e d . Atcheson v . S a f e c o I n s u r a n c e Company ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 165 Mont. 239, 527 P.2d 549. Such c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i e s p a r t i c u l a r l y t o exclusionary clauses. J o h n s o n v . E q u i t a b l e I n s u r a n c e Co. ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 142 Mont. 1 2 8 , 3 8 1 P.2d 778. Applying t h e s e p r i n - c i p l e s w e hold t h a t t h e enlargement of t h e exclusionary c l a u s e t o encompass t h e u s e , p o s s e s s i o n a n d p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l of a n a l l e g e d a g e n t of t h e i n s u r e d i s unwarranted and l a c k s merit. W e h a v e examined t h e p e r i p h e r a l a r g u m e n t s a n d a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d by r e s p o n d e n t a n d f i n d t h a t none would c h a n g e o u r r e s u l t i n t h i s case. The summary judgment i s v a c a t e d . The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion. \ Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: Ww-4-2~ Justices
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
