Opinion ID: 1973629
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: family automobile policy

Text: and toward the bottom of the cover appears:  -------------------------------- | | | Provides You with Complete | | Insurance Protection Tomiko did not read the policy. She could not read English very well. Since Guenther had told her he would try to obtain insurance which would enable her to drive safely, undoubtedly she inferred from the cover on the policy he had procured such coverage for her, and if he had not been successful in doing so, he would have advised her. Vernon Lynch did not examine the policy. His daughter told him she had received it. That was the extent of his knowledge about it. Under the policy (a standard type automobile liability contract), General Insurance Company agreed to pay on behalf of the insured all sums the insured would become legally obliged to pay as damages because of bodily injury sustained by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned automobile or any non-owned automobile. In connection with operation of a non-owned car, the insured was defined to be the named insured, any relative, residing in the same household, provided the actual use of the car is with the permission of the owner, and any other person legally responsible for the use of a non-owned automobile, if such automobile is not owned or hired by such person, provided the actual use thereof is by the named insured or any relative residing in the same household, whose actual use is with the permission of the owner. Non-owned automobile means  an automobile    not owned or furnished for the regular use of either the named insured or any relative.  (Emphasis added) In the place on the policy for the listing of any specifically covered automobile, the only notation is non owned auto coverage. On December 31, 1960, the date of the accident out of which the damage suit arose, Vernon Lynch was operating the car for family purposes. The operation obviously was with permission of Tomiko Lynch, and the proof adduced at the trial supports an inference also that his operation was with Day's general permission. It is likewise clear, however, that the automobile had been furnished by Day for the regular use of his fiancee, Tomiko Lynch, during his assignment in Alaska. Therefore, the car did not qualify for coverage as a non-owned vehicle, and neither it nor Vernon Lynch was within the policy protection at the time of the accident. But more than this, the policy provided no protection for Tomiko Lynch either on that day or at any other time since its inception. It was completely worthless to her and her father in connection with their use of Day's car  the only purpose for which it was sought from Guenther and paid for. The purpose of non-ownership coverage of the kind included in General's policy is to provide protection for an insured for the occasional or infrequent driving of an automobile other than his own, but not to take the place of insurance on automobiles which are furnished for his regular use. Rodenkirk for Use of Deitenbach v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 325 Ill. App. 421, 60 N.E. 2 d 269 ( App. Ct. 1945); Farm Bureau Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Marr, 128 F. Supp. 67 ( D.C.N.J. 1955); Leteff v. Maryland Cas. Co., 91 So. 2 d 123 ( La. Ct. App. 1957); Annotation, 83 A.L.R. 2 d 926 (1962). For the reason stated, General Insurance Company cannot be held liable on its policy. Furthermore, in the facts adduced at the trial we see no evidence of negligence on its part in connection with the issuance of the policy. Guenther was not its agent. He was a broker and acted as agent for the Lynches. Schustrin v. Globe Indem. Co., 44 N.J. Super. 462 ( App. Div. 1957); John Roach, Inc. v. Pingpank, 39 N.J. Super. 336 ( App. Div. 1956). There was nothing in the application for the insurance on which General acted which would warrant an inference that it was negligent in issuing the policy in question in response thereto. Under the circumstances, the trial court was correct in sustaining the denial of coverage and in refusing reformation.