Court Opinion

ID: 9537307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:15:34.395604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:24.380139
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice
(dissenting).
Appellant in this case purchased an automobile insurance policy covering his pickup truck. Appellant could well have been convinced from his insurance policy that it covered not only his pickup truck but any “trailer” drawn by the pickup. I agree with the majority opinion that the determinative question is whether the portable welder was a trailer.
The majority opinion relies • solely upon the cases of Lewellyn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 222 Tenn. 542, 438 S.W.2d 741 (1969), and a 10th Circuit decision in 1971, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 442 F.2d 1151. I believe neither of these cases supports the majority decision that the vehicle in question herein was not a “trailer.” The court in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. indeed held that the vehicle involved therein was not a “trailer” but the decision of that court was reached upon evidence substantially different than in the case at bar. That court stated :
“The undisputed evidence clearly indicates that the portable pump was not ‘designed’ to be towed by a passenger car. The pump was not designed by the manufacturer to be portable; the original owner, who operated a nursery, had made the equipment mobile by mounting it on a simple frame with attached wheels. The device had no brakes or taillights. It weighed 1500 to 1800 pounds and was tail-heavy so that it did not balance properly. It could not be attached to a standard automobile hitch; instead a standard hitch had to be inverted and fastened to the tongue by wire and chain. In a deposition May, the owner of the pump, stated that the pump was not designed for highway use, that he did not intend to use it on the highway, and that he was merely taking it home on the day of the accident. He also stated he planned-to leave the pump attached to the frame and that it would be very difficult to use the frame for any other transport purposes.
******
“Allied quite reasonably declined to accept responsibility for everything its policyholders could put on wheels and pull with a car. It insured only those ‘trailers’ designed to be pulled by cars because it wanted to cover only trailers that would not be, in and of themselves, highway hazards. A heavy piece of machinery on wheels, that had no brake or taillights, that was improperly balanced to be towed by car, that could not be attached to a standard automobile trailer hitch, and that was not designed or generally used on the highway is not covered under the Allied policy.” 442 F.2d at 1153-1154.
*164In my judgment nothing in the record herein indicates the applicability of that case and that language to the case at bar.
I further believe Lewellyn inapplicable to the case at bar. Therein a borrowed mobile welding rig was being pulled behind a truck, came loose and damaged an automobile and a passenger therein. The Tennessee Court held that no coverage existed under an insurance policy worded substantially similar to the case at bar. However, the reasons for the Tennessee Court decision are articulated as follows:
“Since it is stipulated the trailing welding rig was non-owned, was not being pulled by a private passenger or a utility automobile, and since the welding rig was a trailer designed for use for business purposes with other than a private passenger automobile, there is no coverage afforded by the policy. For cases defining the mobile welding rig as a trailer, see Waddey v. Maryland Casualty Co., 171 Tenn. 112, 100 S.W.2d 984 * * * ; Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Haun, 197 Tenn. 527, 276 S.W.2d 711.” 438 S.W.2d at 742.
It is clear to me that had the other factors not existed in that case the Tennessee Court would have held the mobile welding rig as a “trailer.” In Blue Ridge Insurance Co., cited by the Tennessee Court in Lewellyn, the court held that a “souped-up hot rod” car being towed behind another automobile was a “trailer.”
In Waddey cited in Lewellyn two small boys were pushing a homemade wagon along a highway. The wagon was constructed from the frame of a small pony buggy having 4 model-T Ford wheels with no tires thereon. It had no bed or seats. A rope was tied to the front end of the wagon which was used to pull the same. The boys were offered a tow by a passing motorist. One climbed upon the luggage carrier of the car and tied the rope to the rear of the car. The court in Waddey held that the vehicle such as it was constituted a “trailer.”
I suggest that none of the Tennessee cases support the majority position in the case at bar.
No clear statement of law exists construing language such as that contained in the insurance policy (See: 109 A.L.R. 654, 31 A.L.R.2d 298 and cases contained in such annotations). All ambiguities in insurance policies are to be construed most strongly against the insurer. Upon a motion for summary judgment, the affidavits and evidence must be most liberally construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and the party opposing the motion is given the benefit of all favorable inferences which might be reasonably drawn therefrom. Sutton v. Brown, 85 Idaho 104, 375 P.2d 990. Under these circumstances, in my judgment, the motion for summary judgment in the case at bar should have been denied and this cause should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.