Court Opinion

ID: 9726875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:11:05.952702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:31.443170
License: Public Domain

Morris, C. J.
On rehearing. We granted a petition on the part of the respondent for a rehearing. The respondent argues that an insurance policy insuring a common motor carrier pursuant to Section 49-1833 NDB.C 1943 against willful wrong is not void as against public policy because the insurance policy is required by law for the benefit of and protection of the public who are the real beneficiaries rather than the named insured, which is the common motor carrier. Conceding for the purpose of this discussion the correctness of the rule contended for by the respondent, she nevertheless has not as yet established a right to recover against the appellant under the terms of the policy and the statute.
Section 49-1833 NDBC 1943 clearly contemplates that upon final judgment against the common motor carrier the insurer *901shall become liable directly to the owner of such judgment up to the amount of the policy. No judgment has as yet been recovered against the Yellow Cab Company, which is the'common motor carrier involved in this case. If that should occur, plaintiff’s argument then may become pertinent in determining the liability of the insurer.
In this case the policy is broader in its terms than the statute requires in that it makes the driver of a taxicab an insured. This provision of the policy is not required by nor governed by Section 49-1833 NDRC 1943, and liability under it is to be determined not by the rule advocated by the respondent, but under the general rule that an insurance policy indemnifying the insured against liability due to his willful wrong is void as against public policy, a rule which this state has adopted by statute in the terms of Section 26-0604 NDRC 1943, which provides:
“An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured, but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured or of his agents or others.”
Under this rule the respondent cannot recover against the insurer for the willful wrong of the insured, who in this case is the taxicab driver, and not the common motor carrier to whose liability the provisions of Section 49-1833 apply..
The correctness of our determination is further demonstrated by a provision of the policy which states:
“Assault and battery shall be deemed an accident unless committed by or at the direction of the insured.”
The rape, which was an aggravated form of assault and battery, was not committed by or at the direction of the Yellow Cab Company and as far as the liability of its insurer is concerned the rape was an accident, although, as we have previously held, it involved a breach of duty to its passenger on the part of the cab company. On the other hand, the act committed by Pape was not an accident as to his insurer because the clause pertaining to assault and battery excludes that act from coverage under the term accident and thus precludes liability of the insurer based upon a judgment rendered against Pape alone.
The fact that the same insurer has insured both the cab company and the driver under the same policy does not fix the same *902measure of liability as to each. A security covering the liability of the taxicab company was required by statute, but no such statutory security was required for the driver. His coverage was purely contractual and the insurer is not liable unless the judgment, which is the basis upon which recovery is sought from the insurer, falls within the terms of the contract, which the judgment against Pape does not. We adhere to our former opinion.
Grimson, Burke, Sathre and Christianson, JJ., concur.