From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wyene v. Durrington

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Aug 25, 1952
112 Cal.App.2d 821 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)


Docket No. 15042.

August 25, 1952.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. Cecil Mosbacher, Judge. Affirmed.

Action for damages for personal injuries arising out of a collision with a motor vehicle. Judgment for defendants on sustaining demurrer to complaint without leave to amend, affirmed.

Belli, Ashe Pinney for Appellants.

Crittenden, Jackson Williams for Respondent.

The plaintiffs were injured in a collision with a motor vehicle operated by defendant Durrington. More than a year after the collision plaintiffs brought this action for damages joining with defendant Durrington his insurance carrier. This was predicated on allegations that defendants were barred from pleading the statute of limitations because of representations of a settlement without suit made by the insurance carrier. The carrier demurred on the ground that it was not a proper party defendant. This demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and plaintiffs have appealed from the ensuing judgment.

[1] The whole appeal is based on a false premise — that the insurance carrier is a necessary or at least a proper party in order to prove an estoppel against the real party defendant. That theory was implicitly rejected by our Supreme Court in Farrell v. County of Placer, 23 Cal.2d 624 [ 145 P.2d 570, 153 A.L.R. 323], where it was held that the county was estopped from pleading the statute because of representations leading to a settlement made to the plaintiff by an agent of the insurance carrier of the defendant county. The precise question raised here was not involved in the Placer County case because the insurance carrier was not joined as a party defendant, but the case is controlling here on the real issue involved — but not fully argued — that an insurance carrier is not a necessary party to permit the plaintiff to plead an estoppel against the real party defendant.

All the cases cited which appear to be contrary to this rule are based on an express provision in an ordinance or in the policy of insurance creating a primary liability on the part of the carrier. Thus in Van DerHoof v. Chambon, 121 Cal.App. 118, 131 [ 8 P.2d 925], it is said: "In all the cases in California that we have been able to find which permit the joining of the Insurance Company, there was an express provision in the policy or an ordinance under which it was written providing that the policy should inure to the benefit of the public." In accord are Grier v. Ferrant, 62 Cal.App.2d 306, 310 [ 144 P.2d 631]; Gugliemetti v. Graham, 50 Cal.App. 268, 270 [ 195 P. 64]; Milliron v. Dittman, 180 Cal. 443, 446 [ 181 P. 779].

Judgment affirmed.

Goodell, J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

Appellants' petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 23, 1952. Carter, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Summaries of

Wyene v. Durrington

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Aug 25, 1952
112 Cal.App.2d 821 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
Case details for

Wyene v. Durrington

Case Details

Full title:MRS. WALTER WYENE et al., Appellants, v. W.F. DURRINGTON et al.…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two

Date published: Aug 25, 1952


112 Cal.App.2d 821 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
247 P.2d 414

Citing Cases

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Ontario Aircraft Services, Inc.

There is authority for the proposition that acts by an insurer may estop the insured because of the…

Geraci v. United Services Automobile Assn.

Had Budget been an insurance carrier, it would still not be necessary to join it as a party in the action to…