Court Opinion

ID: 9567007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:46:48.896169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:49:58.994801
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice
(concurring specially) .
The cpmpany insured defendant Ruther against damages resulting from mishap occasioned by his use of the insured vehicle, “imposed upon him by law”, He, not the partnership, was using his truck at the tirpe of the injury .sustained by plaintiff, in compliance with, his side-agreement with his partner, Seba, that-he, Ruther, would haul Seba’s combine from Oklahoma to the wheat country and from job to .job while there, in return for the privilege of hauling, for the prices, commanded by the performance of such services, the wheat combined by the *890partnership to the elevator. . Mouse, an employee of the partnership, injured, according to the petition and verdict, in the course of such employment, sued the partnership, as shown in the majority opinion. The company moved as if to defend the principal action but withdrew to await developments, on the theory that Ruther was not personally sued, could not be personally liable, and that its liability could not rise above that of its insured, and therefore it was not concerned. Therein lay its error.
The truck concerned was that of its insured.
The company argues, in briefs lately filed, its liability, if any, is not as the holder of property of the insured but must arise from policy provisions. Granted, but it should have anticipated that judgment might go against the partnership, that the partnership might'be short on assets and that their insured might be asked to respond as a member thereof. His response personally to liability insured against, “imposed upon him by law,” must be made in his behalf by the insurer,
I therefore concur.