Court Opinion

ID: 9579098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:51:26.113259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:17.118380
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Jordan, Judge.
It is contended by the plaintiff insurance company on motion for rehearing that the principle of law set out and followed by this court in the second division of the opinion is inapplicable to- this case since notice of the business use of the insured’s vehicle was not given to the company but only to its agent and that the letter referred to in the opinion was merely an exchange of correspondence between two agents of the company.
The record discloses, however, that the defendant Hunnicutt in paragraph 10 of his answer to the petition alleged that on July 1, 1958, R. J. Waller, Jr. (the writing agent) sent a report to the plaintiff insurance company showing that the policy of insurance had been written on the vehicle in question and showing that the insured’s occupation was that of a. mortician and that the vehicle would be used in his business. The plaintiff company in paragraph 8 of its answer to paragraph 10 of the defendant Hunnicutt’s answer admitted that Waller sent said report to the company and that the company sent a letter to Waller requesting the rate change.
*261The pleadings therefore affirmatively show that such notice was given to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff wrote the letter to the writing agent after receipt of such notice. Since, as stated in the opinion, this case was decided by the trial judge by agreement of the parties on the pleadings, exhibits and depositions, the trial judge was fully authorized to find that the plaintiff company had such notice, and the motion for rehearing is accordingly without merit.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.