Title: Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clayton

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

103 Ariz. 296 (1968) 440 P.2d 916 HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., a corporation, Appellant, v. Franklin Stanley CLAYTON and Irene E. Clayton, his wife, and Henry Espinoza and Catherine Espinoza, his wife, Noel Thomas, Individually and Noel Thomas, as Guardian ad litem for Willis Thomas and Karen Thomas, minors, and Patricia E. Thomas, his wife, Appellees. No. 8607. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Division. May 8, 1968. Trew & Woodford, by R.R. Woodford, Phoenix, for appellant. James E. Grant, Phoenix, for appellees Clayton. Gordon G. Aldrich, Phoenix, for appellees Thomas. McFARLAND, Chief Justice. Noel and Patricia Thomas filed suit in the Superior Court of Maricopa County for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident caused by a car owned by Irene Clayton, driven by her husband Franklin Clayton, and insured by plaintiff-appellant Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company, hereinafter called the company. While that suit was pending the company brought an action for declaratory judgment against the Claytons and the Thomases, and others not involved in this appeal. The basis of this action was the fact that the company's liability policy on the Clayton car contained an endorsement providing that coverage would not apply when the vehicle was being driven by Franklin Clayton. After the issues were joined, the Thomases moved for a summary judgment declaring the company answerable under its policy. The trial court ordered that the company "be denied all relief and that the action be dismissed on its merits." The case now before us is an appeal by the insurance company from that order. In Jenkins v. Mayflower Insurance Exchange, 93 Ariz. 287, 380 P.2d 145, after quoting from Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136, we said: The company, while agreeing with Jenkins v. Mayflower Insurance Exchange, supra, contends it is not applicable to the instant case, because in Mayflower the policy excluded all members of the armed services, while in the instant case the policy excluded only the car-owner's husband. Excluding a large group, says counsel, was completely unreasonable; excluding the husband, who was a known bad driver, on the other hand, was completely reasonable. *297 This argument which is the only one advanced by the company has already been decided by us in Dairyland Mutual Insurance Company v. Andersen, 102 Ariz. 515, 433 P.2d 963. In that case the automobile was owned by the O.K. Meat Packing Company, and the policy excluded only one man James Andersen. In our opinion we said: Because of the soundness of both Mayflower and Dairyland, it follows that the judgment from which this appeal was taken must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. UDALL, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, J., concur.