Court Opinion

ID: 9790712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:58:19.627984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:31.081902
License: Public Domain

HOUSER, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. Notwithstanding the possible trend -of precedents to the contrary, I am unwilling to subscribe to a doctrine which either will, or may, encourage the perpetration of fraud, or afford a favorable opportunity to unscrupulous insurance companies (if any) or to their agents, through collusion with an assured, to defeat the just rights of one who may be injured through the negligence of an insured person. It is obvious that, under the rule that has been announced in the majority opinion, as a consequence of a possible collusion between an insurance company and an impecunious owner of an automobile, an insured person might be induced to “cooperate” with an insurance company even up to any moment of a trial, and then, under some pretext, or for no reason whatsoever, either fail or decline to continue in his “cooperation”,—with the result that, however meritorious the cause of action of a plaintiff might be, the insurance company would become absolved from liability, to the irreparable loss of the injured person.
I am of the opinion that, by virtue of the exercise of police power, not only is the public entitled to assert and to maintain an interest in every automobile insurance policy, but also that, by its contract, an insurance company impliedly holds out to the world an assurance that it will answer for the actionable negligence of the insured person. Likewise, and in consequence, am I convinced that until and including *339the instant when an accident insured against may occur, the contract of insurance should be interpreted as one made not only for the benefit of the person with whom such contract has been entered into, but also for the benefit and protection of the third person who may be injured in such accident; furthermore, that to permit an insurance company, because of its agreement with its assured to that legal effect, to evade liability that already may have ensued against it, solely for the reason that thereafter the assured has failed to “cooperate”, amounts to nothing less than legal encouragement and an implied invitation to commit a fraud as far as the rights of the injured person are concerned. Such an agreement should be condemned as contrary to public policy and adjudged wholly void. In other word's, my conclusion is that, after an accident has occurred, by no act, omission, or agreement of any kind, by or in behalf of the parties to the contract, should the assumed rights of interested third persons therein be adversely affected. The following authorities have at least an indirect bearing upon the situation herein presented:
In the case entitled Stovall v. New York Indemnity Co., 157 Tenn. 301 [8 S. W. (2d) 473, 72 A. L. R. 1368], the court said: “ ... in Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, (1927) vol. 3, p. 2637, the case of Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co. [101 Conn. 369 (125 Atl. 866, 41 A. L. R. 500)], supra, is referred to as holding that ‘where an automobile liability insurance policy extended indemnity to third parties driving with assured’s permission, and permitted suit against the insurer by persons injured by the operation of the car, slight deviations, by one permitted by the insured to drive home to change his clothes, from the route to the home of the driver, does not destroy the insurer’s liability for injuries to a guest of the driver’.”
Referring to the Dickinson ease, the court proceeded to say: “ In construing the policy, we think the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut correctly placed emphasis upon the purpose of the named insured to protect any person injured by the operation of the car by giving him a cause of action against the insurer, in the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of the person responsible in law for injuries inflicted in the operation of the car. This object or purpose is in accord with the trend of public opinion, tohich, in some juris*340dictions, has resulted in legislation requiring owners and operators of automobiles to carry insurance for the protection of persons who may be injured by their operation.” (Emphasis added.)
That the rights of any person lawfully using the highway who may he injured by the negligent operation of an automobile by another should be of paramount importance, in an action brought by such injured third person to collect damages resulting from his injuries, is borne out by the fact (commented upon in the case just cited) that in several jurisdictions the legislatures of the respective states have enacted compulsory automobile insurance laws. Such laws have been held' to be valid legislative enactments, under the police power of the state. (See Huddy, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, ninth edition, vol. 13-14, p. 302, and cases there cited.)
Thus in the work of Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, vol. 5, p. 4199, in discussing the compulsory automobile insurance law of New Hampshire, the author says: “ . . . the New Hampshire court, in passing upon the questions submitted to it, declared that the legislature, under its authority over public highways and its power to provide for the public safety, could lawfully pass a general requirement that motor vehicles may be operated on the public highways only when adequate provision has been made for compensation to persons injured by negligent operation; ...” (Emphasis added.)
And in the case entitled Wheeler v. O’Connell, (Mass.) 9 N. E. (2d) 544, the court said: “The purpose of the compulsory motor vehicle insurance law ... is to provide compensation to persons injured through the operation of the oMtomobile insured by the owner. In speaking of the grounds for justification of the statute in question, it was said in Opinion of the Justices, 251 Mass. 569, 596 [147 N. E. 681, 694]: ‘The most important is the great uncompensated damage now caused by motor vehicles to innocent travelers upon the public ways. ’ And it has been pointed out by this court in many eases that the protection of the traveler on the public ways is the fundamental basis of the statute. [Citing cases.]” (Emphasis added.)
Also in the case entitled In re Opinion of the Justices, 251 Mass. 569 (147 N. E. 681, at pp. 693, 694), the court *341discussed at length the reasons underlying legislation providing for compulsory automobile insurance, and commented as follows:
“The power of the General Court to regulate travel over the public ways of the commonwealth for the general welfare is extensive. It may be exercised in any reasonable manner to conserve the safety of travelers. No one has a right to use streets and other public places as he chooses without regard to the presence of others. It is an underlying conception of streets and highways that they shall at all times be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel and that travelers thereon in the exercise of due care may be secure from preventable danger. Numerous statutes to that end have been enacted from early times to the present. All highways now are laid out and established by public authority. . . . The requirement that every owner before being allowed to register his motor vehicle shall provide security for the discharge of his liability for personal injuries or death resulting from the presence of such motor vehicle on the public ways cannot be pronounced unreasonable. It furnishes a degree of assurance of compensation to those rightly and carefully using the ways and injured by the carelessness of operators of motor vehicles. It may be thought that an indirect result of such regulation will be to cause the exercise of greater care on the part of such operators and of higher caution on the part of owners of motor vehicles in refusing to intrust them to careless operators. The requirement for security for the payment of the legal claims arising from personal injuries caused on highways by motor vehicles is an extension of the police power into a new field so far as we are aware, but in our opinion it falls within the limits of the constitutional power of the General Court. It may be justified on several grounds. The most important is the great uncompensated damage now caused by motor vehicles to innocent travelers upon the public ways. It is a part of the declaration of Rights of our Constitution that:
“ ‘Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character.’ Article 11.
*342“Another ground upon which the validity of the proposed statute may rest is that the motor vehicle is of itself a dangerous instrumentality. Unless kept in good repair and equipped with adequate brakes and then driven on public ways with a high degree of care and skill, it is bound to become a source of imminent danger to other travelers. Chief Justice Shaw said in Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84, 85:
“ ‘It is a settled principle, growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil society, that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the rights of the community. ’
“ ... It has commonly been thought that there is no more certain way of securing attention to the safety of human beings than by holding those responsible for dangers to heavy and certain liability for injuries arising therefrom. [Arizona Employers’ Liability Cases], 250 U. S. 400, at 432 [39 Sup. Ct. 553, 63 L. Ed. 1058, 6 A. L. R 1537]. Legal liability without financial responsibility is a barren right to one who sustains injury by the wrongful act of another. A peremptory requirement that, before one brings a dangerous instrumentality into public places, the owner must first provide adequate security that those who suffer personal injury through the negligent use thereof shall be assured of recompense would be no greater interference with fundamental rights than the instances just cited. The operation of such an instrumentality in public places is not a natural right. It is subject to reasonable regulation for the benefit of the general public. ...” To the same effect is Re Opinion of the Justices, 81 N. H. 566 [129 Atl. 117, 39 A. L. R. 1023].
In the face of the provisions of the several statutes to which reference has been had in the foregoing quotations, the reasoning employed by the different appellate tribunals in the cited eases, and the judicial pronouncements in connection therewith, it would seem most improbable that, by reason of a contract provision like the one here in question which might be contained within a policy of insurance,—on the happening of an accident which had occurred through and by reason of the negligent act of the assured—an insurance *343company would be allowed to evade liability therefor on the ground that, after the accident had occurred, the assured had either refused or failed to “cooperate”.
Furthermore, as tending tbward a recognition and consequent application of a doctrine such as that which herein-before has been suggested and which to my mind should prevail herein, see the case of Malmgren v. Southwestern A. Ins. Co., 201 Cal. 29 [255 Pac. 512].
Rehearing denied. Houser, J., and Seawell, J., voted for a rehearing.