Court Opinion

ID: 9725814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:12:48.160214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:20.235091
License: Public Domain

Wingert, J.
{dissenting). I cannot agree that the insurance policy covered the Chevrolet if the Chevrolet replaced the Ford described in the policy instead of being a temporary substitute automobile. The policy provision pertinent to an automobile newly acquired to replace the described vehicle, sec. IV (a) (4), provides for coverage “if the named insured notifies the company within thirty days following the date of its [the new car’s] delivery to him.” In my opinion the quoted words, in their context, are free of ambiguity and mean what they say. Coverage is extended to the new vehicle from the date of its delivery if the notice is given as required, but not otherwise. The requirement of notice is not oppressive to the insured, for it is understandable to a layman, and thirty days is ample time to permit giving notice without inconvenience.
In the present case no notice of either the acquisition, the replacement, or the accident was given within the prescribed thirty-day period. Therefore the plain condition for extension of coverage to a newly acquired replacement vehicle was not met. Mr. Justice Hallows concurs in this opinion.