Court Opinion

ID: 9768209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:49:54.603259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:37.410435
License: Public Domain

GREENHILL, Chief Justice,
concurring dissenting.
I agree with the substance of the dissenting opinion of Justice McGee. I do not agree with his statement that the court’s opinion declared void the default judgment obtained against Busch. Nor is it necessary to express an opinion on the “present day tendency to interpret automobile liability insurance . . . as a contract for the benefit of the injured party.”
This case, however, is distinguishable from Members Mutual Insurance Company v. Cutaia, 476 S.W.2d 278 (1972), and related cases. There the named insured, — the person who entered into the agreement and who had the possession of the policy and could consult it, failed to carry out the provisions of the policy. This court had previously held that the failure of the named insured to give notice of the accident or forward suit papers was a breach of the agreement which excused performance by the insurance company. I would not extend those holdings to excuse the insurance company where it has prompt and actual knowledge of the accident, notice of the accident from the named insured, and has the suit papers in hand giving the names of all the defendants, well in advance of trial — forwarded by the named insured. The suit papers were forwarded to the insured by the named insured, Thomas, a year and a half before the trial resulting in judgment against Busch, the omnibus insured. Busch was named as a defendant in the suit papers thus forwarded by the named insured, Thomas. The holding of the court, with which I cannot agree, is that the insured had no obligation to defend the suit because Busch did not also forward copies of the suit papers.
The omnibus insured is really a stranger to the actual provisions of the written insurance policy. There is no showing that he had ever seen it, or was advised that he should do anything.