Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02544/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02544-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael T. Dorner
Appellant
United Security Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

-. 

FI LED 

United States Coun of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 1 ,1 1989 

UNITED SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MICHAEL T. DORNER, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2544 

(D.C. No. C87-0222J) 

( D. Wyo. ) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals from an order of the district court 

granting summary judgment for plaintiff and declaring that 

defendant is not insured by an automobile insurance policy issued 

by plaintiff to defendant's brother. Defendant purchased the 

automobile insured by plaintiff from his brother. The sale of the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2544 Document: 01019975691 Date Filed: 08/14/1989 Page: 1 
automobile was conditional, in that defendant took possession of 

the automobile, but defendant's brother kept title to the 

automobile until defendant paid the purchase price in full. 

Subsequently, defendant was involved in an accident which resulted 

in injuries to his passenger. Plaintiff then commenced this 

action seeking a declaration that defendant was not insured under 

the insurance policy. 

The issue before the district court and this court on appeal 

is whether a buyer can claim insurance coverage under a seller's 

insurance policy when the seller sells the insured automobile to 

the buyer under a conditional sales contract. The district court 

held that after the conditional sale, defendant's use and 

possession of the automobile was by virtue of ownership of the 

automobile, and not by virtue of a grant of permissive use by his 

brother. Accordingly, the district court concluded defendant was 

not insured by the insurance policy issued by plaintiff. 

After reviewing the briefs on appeal, record on appeal, and 

relevant case law, we conclude that the district court correctly 

found no coverage. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated 

by the district court in its order filed August 31, 1988. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2544 Document: 01019975691 Date Filed: 08/14/1989 Page: 2