Opinion ID: 2161807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of Insurance Policy.

Text: The complaint in each of the three actions alleges on information and belief that prior to February 28, 1961, appellant American had issued an insurance policy to Winnebagoland Motors covering the 1953 Plymouth, that Klapps was operating the car with the permission of Winnebagoland, and that the policy was in full force and effect at the time of the collision. By its answer (in the Krause action, which is substantially the same in the others) appellant American admitted issuing the policy prior to February 28th, and alleged that the policy was subject to all of the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions as contained therein. Appellant denied that the policy was in full force and effect at the time of the accident. The answer further recited: This answering defendant further alleges the true facts to be that at the time of the said collision the said 1953 Plymouth 2 door automobile was jointly owned by the said Robert C. Klapps and his father, Reuben Klapps; that the said Winnebagoland Motors, Inc., was not the owner of said vehicle, and the said automobile was not covered by any policy of insurance then in existence by and between the said Winnebagoland Motors, Inc., and this answering defendant at the time of said collision. Appellant contends that by failing to introduce the policy or any testimony concerning coverage into evidence respondents failed to sustain their burden of proof in regard to the issue raised by the pleadings of whether or not there was an insurance policy in effect at the time of the collision. But the pleadings do not raise an issue as to the existence of a policy. The answers clearly raise a policy defense by denying that there was coverage at the time of the accident because the car was then owned by the Klapps, not Winnebagoland Motors. Under the pleadings, and after a trial on this precise policy defense, it would be farfetched indeed to support appellant's contention that the very existence of the alleged policy was in dispute. In effect, we conclude that the existence of the policy was conceded and the trial was properly limited to the particular coverage question raised by American.