Court Opinion

ID: 9566203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:34:58.505294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:29:43.166098
License: Public Domain

Elliott, J.,
dissenting: Unlike the majority, I cannot distinguish Bramlett v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 205 Kan. 128, 468 P.2d 157 (1970). To me, it is insignificant that the accident occurred within 30 days of the acquisition of the Pontiac; it is equally insignificant that the Carlsons purchased insurance coverage with a company other than Farm Bureau.
What is significant to me is the undisputed fact that, for whatever reason, the Carlsons did obtain specific insurance coverage on the Pontiac. The teaching of Bramlett is clear:
“The purpose of the ‘automatic insurance clause’ or ‘newly acquired automobile clause’ in an automobile policy is to provide insurance coverage when an owned automobile is not described in a policy. When specific insurance is purchased and a separate policy is issued on the automobile it becomes an automobile described in a new policy and it is no longer a ‘newly acquired automobile.’ At that time the terms and provisions of the ‘automatic insurance clause’ or ‘newly acquired automobile clause’ are no longer applicable to the automobile.” 205 Kan. at 132. (Emphasis added.)
Bramlett simply places no significance on when or with whom the specific insurance coverage is acquired. In the present case, when the Carlsons purchased specific insurance coverage for the Pontiac, coverage under the terms and provisions of the “newly acquired vehicle clauses” of the Farm Bureau policies terminated and is, therefore, no longer applicable to the Pontiac.
I would affirm.