Opinion

American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki

  • 255 La. 251
  • 230 So. 2d 253
  • 1969 La. LEXIS 3294
Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Filed
Dec 15, 1969
Status
Published
Author
Sanders
On the bench
Summers, Sanders
Cited by
252 cases
Authority
More cited than 8.0%

finding that the insurer had a duty to defend the driver even though the court ultimately found that driver was not a covered party

How later courts described this case

  • finding that the insurer had a duty to defend the driver even though the court ultimately found that driver was not a covered party
  • “Most importantly, [plaintiffs] alleged that [the defendant] ‘was driving the Chevrolet with the permission and consent of the insured within the terms of and within the meaning of the [policies].’”
  • false allegation that driver of vehicle had consent of owner required insurance company to defend
  • the insurer's obligation to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Rollings, 355 So. 2d 1041 (1978)

    We find no merit to Continental's contention that the Czarniecki case is inapplicable.
    Louisiana Court of AppealFeb 14, 1978Read it

The opinion

SANDERS, Justice

(dissenting).

As the majority correctly holds, Randy Carroll was in reality the named insured under the State Farm policy. See Garland v. Audubon Insurance Company, La.App., 119 So.2d 530 , as explained in Rogillio v. Cazedessus, 241 La. 186, 197-198 , 127 So. 2d 734, 738 . Hence, under the terms of the policy, we must look to Randy’s consent to determine coverage.

Randy loaned the car to his friend, Hans Gerteis, to go on a double date. Since Randy had full knowledge that the car was to be used on a double date, at least until midnight, it was entirely foreseeable that the other boy with Hans might drive the car. Hence, since Randy imposed no restriction as to the driver, he impliedly consented to the other boy’s driving. That he did not know his name does not bar this conclusion. Under the circumstances shown, it was enough that he knew the car was to be used by two dating couples.

Having concluded that the showing of consent is sufficient, I hold that the State Farm policy provides coverage under its omnibus clause. I would therefore render judgment for the damages against State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company.

. For; the reasons assigned, I respectfully, dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.