Case Title: Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sumner

Citation: 171 Vt. 572, 762 A.2d 849

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sumner (99-450); 171 Vt. 572;
762 A.2d 849

[Filed 16-Oct-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-450

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2000

Concord General Mutual Insurance Company  }	APPEALED FROM:
                                          }
                                          }
     v.	                                  }	Rutland Superior Court
                                          }	
                                          }
Floyd Sumner	                          }	DOCKET NO. S0722-97 RcC

                                                Trial Judge: Mary Miles Teachout

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       This dispute between two insurance companies turns on which of two
  vehicle dealers -  Automaster Motor Co., which is insured by defendant
  Acadia Insurance Company, or Carey's Auto  Sales, which is insured by
  plaintiff Concord General Mutual Insurance Company - owned a certain  Honda
  automobile when it was in an accident in which an employee of Carey's was
  injured.  The trial  court ruled that the vehicle was owned by Carey's and,
  thus, that Concord was obligated to cover the  damages from the injuries to
  the employee.  We affirm.

       Automaster purchased the Honda vehicle from a private owner and sold
  it to Carey's.  Carey's  employee went to Automaster, provided a check for
  payment for the vehicle, put Carey's dealer's  plates on it and drove it
  away.  Although it apparently had the certificate of title at the time 
  possession of the vehicle was taken by Carey's employee, Automaster did not
  assign it to Carey's  until days later.  The accident occurred while the
  employee was driving the vehicle back to Carey's  lot.

       Although Concord's argument depends on the intricacies of the Vermont
  Motor Vehicle  Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act, 23 V.S.A. §§
  2001-2095, its position is that title did not pass  until either Automaster
  assigned the title certificate to Carey's or sent it to the Commissioner of 
  Motor Vehicles so a new certificate of title could be issued to Carey's. 
  Acadia responds, in essence,  that certificates of title are not issued to
  dealers and dealers always have 10 days after a sale to pass  the
  certificate of title.

       At the outset, we stress that all answers to ownership questions will
  not inevitably be found in  the Certificate of Title Act.  Concord argues
  that we so held in Stearns v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 154 Vt.  126, 573 A.2d 692 (1990).  See also Winn v. Becker, 163 Vt. 615,