Court Opinion

ID: 9784550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:48:24.854325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:56.165284
License: Public Domain

MITCHELL, P.J.,
dissenting.
I disagree that Mr. Bradford was an insured under the State Farm Policy. He was not “legally responsible” for his daughter-in-law’s horse when he was at his son and daughter-in-law’s house to babysit his grandchild. Security National Insurance Co. v. Sequoyah Marina, 246 F.2d 830 (10th Cir.1957), the case relied upon by the majority, is neither applicable nor analogous. It involves a mechanic who was physically working on and operating a boat. He was in actual possession and control of the boat. Thus, he was “legally responsible” for the boat and was held to be an insured under the boat owner’s policy. Bradford’s purpose for being on the property was to babysit. His purpose had nothing to do with horses. He was neither caring for nor using the horse. He may have been negligent in leaving the gate *574open, but that fact does not make Bradford “legally responsible” for the animal as that phrase is used in the State Farm policy.