Opinion ID: 2467790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: national indemnity company policy

Text: National Indemnity issued its combination automobile policy to Rinderknecht as named insured for a term of one year from April 4, 1968. The policy did not designate a particular automobile to be insured under the policy but instead noted on the schedule that a non-owner policy endorsement was attached. [5] Endorsement No. 5 attached to the policy was a printed non-owner policy endorsement which provided in part as follows: It is agreed that such insurance as is afforded by the policy for Bodily Injury Liability, for Property Damage Liability and for Automobile Medical Payments applies with respect to the use of any automobile by or on behalf of the named insured or his spouse if a resident of the same household, subject to the following provisions: 1. With respect to the insurance for Bodily Injury Liability and for Property Damage Liability the unqualified word `insured' includes (a) such named insured and spouse, and (b) any other person or organization legally responsible for the use by such named insured or spouse of an automobile not owned or hired by such other person or organization. Division (a) of Insuring Agreement III, Definition of Insured, does not apply to this insurance. 2. The insurance does not apply: (a) as respects the named insured, to any automobile owned by the named insured and as respects the spouse of the named insured, to any automobile owned by the named insured, such spouse or a member of the same household other than a private chauffeur or domestic servant of such named insured or spouse, provided this subdivision (a) does not apply with respect to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death of the named insured or spouse through being struck by an automobile under division 2 of Coverage C;       4. This insurance shall be excess insurance over any other valid and collectible insurance for Bodily Injury Liability, for Property Damage Liability and for Automobile Medical Payments. Having determined that the 1964 Chevrolet involved in the accident was owned by Rinderknecht, it follows that under paragraph 2(a) of the foregoing endorsement there was no coverage provided for Rinderknecht in connection with the Thomassen collision. Paragraph 2(a), which excludes coverage in certain instances with reference to owned automobiles, specifically provides that the limitation therein contained applies as respect the named insured. [6] In other words, Rinderknecht bought insurance to protect him (and his spouse) only with reference to the operation of non-owned vehicles. The policy provided no coverage applicable to the operation by Rinderknecht or his spouse of owned vehicles. [7] The trial court held that Rinderknecht is not covered by National Indemnity with respect to the Thomassen accident and we agree with that conclusion. The trial court also held that the National Indemnity policy provides no coverage for Mooney with respect to this accident, basing its conclusion on the proposition that the policy covered only a `non-owned' automobile operated by Rinderknecht. That decision obviously was premised on the proposition that paragraph 2(a) of the non-owner endorsement operated to limit coverage with respect to all persons and organizations that qualified as insureds, not just the named insured and his spouse. With the foregoing conclusion we disagree. Paragraph 2(a) specifically limits its application to the named insured or his spouse. It says, This insurance does not apply: (a) as respects the named insured. . . and as respects the spouse of the named insured . . .. That language makes no reference to and does not purport to limit the insurance provided in paragraph 1(b) of the non-owner endorsement wherein insurance is provided to any other person or organization legally responsible for the use by such named insured or spouse of an automobile not owned or hired by such person or organization. The non-owner coverage provided these additional insureds is limited in its application only if the automobile operated by the named insured or spouse is owned or hired by the person or organization claiming coverage under paragraph 1(b). The record on appeal shows, as we have held, that the Chevrolet was owned by Rinderknecht, not by Mooney. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any evidence that said automobile was hired by Mooney. The trial judge in paragraph 9 of his findings of fact made the finding that Rinderknecht received $100 per month automobile expense allowance but there is no evidence in the record to support that finding. [8] Since the car driven by Rinderknecht was neither owned nor hired by Mooney, we conclude and hold that Mooney was an insured under the provisions of paragraph 1(b) of the non-owner endorsement to the National Indemnity policy.