#Insurance for a 1968 el camino trial
#Insurance for a 1968 el camino plus

Where a vehicle has more than one purpose or design, it is a question of fact to be determined by a jury as to which use is primary.

The words 'designed primarily' as used in the policy are ambiguous, and such ambiguity should be resolved in favor of plaintiff. Curiously, both parties cite the same authorities, in some instances, to support their respective positions.Īs we have observed, plaintiff's five contentions of error can be fairly reduced to these two: 1. There appears to be a dearth of appellate decisions, both domestic and foreign, on the points involved and we are satisfied they have all been presented for our consideration. Counsel have assiduously briefed the questions involved.

#Insurance for a 1968 el camino trial

The evidence presented at the trial was brief and we shall review it when apposite to a point under discussion. The automobile manufacturers themselves recognize the pick up to be designed primarily for transporting persons.' The verdict of the jury in this case, which was supported by overwhelming evidence should be restored. Where a vehicle has more than one purpose or design it is a question of fact for the jury to determine which use is `primary'. The cases uniformily hold that a pick up is a `private passenger automobile'. `Designed primarily' means the principal use of the vehicle made by the insured. The words `designed' and `primarily' as used in the policy are ambiguous and that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the insured. The design, construction and use of one half ton pick ups is (sic) primarily for passenger transportation. As asserted, however, the five are rendered verbatim: As we will detail, they, too, can be reduced to merely two grounds, the others being either redundant or tangential. Plaintiff, on the other hand, offers five distinct grounds of error. Secondly, that the plaintiff failed to make a submissible case. West and defendant were unambiguous, excluding, as a matter of law, the half ton pickup from its definition of 'private passenger automobile'. Firstly, that the terms of the insurance contract between Mr. Although defendant asserted four grounds in its Motion for Judgment, actually but two points are raised in it. The trial court sustained defendant's after trial Motion for Judgment and entered judgment for defendant.

#Insurance for a 1968 el camino plus

'* * * As used in this Policy, automobile means a land vehicle of the type commonly and ordinarily known and referred to as an `automobile', and private passenger automobile means a private automobile designed primarily for transporting persons.'Ī jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $15,000 plus interest of $750. That term was defined in the policy as follows: Defendant refused payment and defended the action brought on the policy on the ground that the half ton pickup was not a 'private passenger automobile' within the context of the policy. In due course, the plaintiff beneficiary made claim for payment and was refused. West, returning home from work in his 1962 Chevrolet pickup, collided with a tractor-trailer, was injured and died of those injuries on October 2, 1963. Superimposed upon the face of the insurance policy, in block letters, is the legend: 'THIS IS A LIMITED POLICY READ IT CAREFULLY.' On September 14, 1963, Mr. On September 25, 1962, defendant Old American Insurance Company insured plaintiff's husband, Albert West, against certain accidental injuries or death suffered while riding in a 'private passenger *35 automobile'.

Purcell, Morrison, Hecker, Cozad, Morrison & Curtis, Kansas City, for respondent.Īs Modified on Court's Own Motion and Rehearing Denied April 10, 1968. Gisler, Kansas City, for appellant Gisler & Howell, Kansas City, of counsel.

1.Īs Modified on Motion and Rehearing Denied April 10, 1968. OLD AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent.