Hale

Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Good Law
1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 1840·256 Cal. App. 2d 177·63 Cal. Rptr. 819
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 1967Civ. 23519California2,271 words

Opinion

Opinion

Taylor, J.

This action for declaratory relief concerns the construction of the family exclusion and uninsured motorist clauses, respectively, of two automobile liability policies issued by the same insurer on two vehicles in the same family. The husband and wife collided while each was driving one of the family automobiles. The insurer, defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, hereafter State Farm, appeals from the portion of the judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Marie A. and Jessie L. Hale, awarding them costs, and holding that under the particular facts of the case, the family exclusion clause of the policy issued on the car driven by Mr. Hale was against public policy and that consequently State Farm was obligated to defend Mr. Hale in the personal injury action filed by Mrs. Hale. Plaintiff, Marie A. Hale, appeals from the portion of the judgment holding that she had no valid claim against State Farm under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy issued on the ear she was driving.

The facts are stipulated. On September 13, 1963, in the City of Richmond, Mr. Hale, driving the 1960 Comet registered to him and his wife, collided with the 1957 Metro registered to Mrs.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.