Tort Law

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Insurance Garage Policy and the related topic of vehicle accidents.  For more information on insurance see the page on Wikipedia.

Insurance Garage Policy-Cases

2009 Seals v. Erie Ins. Exch., 277 Va. 558, 674 S.E.2d 860.
Plaintiff injured while test driving a motor vehicle is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the Dealership’s Garage Keepers Insurance Policy.

1975 Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. GEICO, 215 Va. 676, 212 S.E.2d 297.
Omnibus clause and insurance garage policy discussed. Purchaser of auto not covered by garage policy of used car dealer who never acquired title to vehicle. Omnibus clause does not apply because dealer not owner.

1972 Hardware Mut. v. General Acc., 212 Va. 780, 188 S.E.2d 218.
Whether operator was permissive user under insurance garage policy was jury issue.

1971 Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. State Farm, 212 Va. 15, 181 S.E.2d 614.
Aetna issued garage policy to Mink. Mink rented car to Porter while Porter’s car being repaired. State Farm policy to Porter provides excess coverage for nonowned vehicle. Aetna is primary insurer.

1968 Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Celina Mut. Ins. Co., 209 Va. 60, 161 S.E.2d 680.
Under omnibus clause, provision in policy making coverage for permissive user conditional, is invalid. However, excess escape provision for non-owned vehicle in family auto policy is valid limitation of coverage.

1968 American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Kaplan, 209 Va. 53, 161 S.E.2d 675.
Under omnibus clause, provision making coverage for permissive user conditional is invalid. However, “excess escape” provision for non-owned vehicle in family auto policy is valid limitation of coverage.

1964 Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Strohkorb, 205 Va. 472, 137 S.E.2d 913.
Defendant issued policy to garage for coverage of vehicles used in automobile business. Car was being returned to owner by employee of shop. Held: since being used in auto business, garage policy primary.

1964 Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Federal Mut. Ins. Co., 204 Va. 879, 134 S.E.2d 253.
Nationwide provided coverage for driver’s automobile business. Federal provided coverage for vehicle operated with exclusion if vehicle was used in automobile business. Operator was test driving vehicle with possibility of trade in mind. Held: no coverage under Federal’s policy.

1947 Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. v. Indemnity Ins., 186 Va. 204, 42 S.E.2d 298.
Exclusion within auto policy relating to use of vehicle by garage keeper was held valid.