*1 wife there “and that estate of PERKINS, Appellant, John heirs.” her was added a limitation over appear. The Several factual differences and, “bodily at all term heirs” was not used Bessie PERKINS State Farm Mutual importantly, included most the term was not Company, Automobile Insurance description party in the sec Respondents. Furthermore, part. Jersey ond in New No. 22279. quantity conveyed of the estate must de pend upon operative convey words of City Appeals. Kansas Court of ance and the whole instrument cannot be Missouri. intent, which is con examined to determine Oct. 1955. similar trary rule. For to the Missouri Den ex dem. Harden reasons Hardenbergh, bergh v. N.J.L. persuasive effect. has no five-year during that

It the divorce

interval between Bul R. R. death of Bullock J. J. partition the life estate right had lock by have while was which he did not existed, entirety. right, if it ever This R. Bullock was not exercised J. death.

(cid:127)extinguished reason of his case, we do not

the view we take of question rights what the

reach the period during R. Bullock were J. her whether defendant forfeited

time or Bullock’s rights in R.

dower and other J. plaintiff. Nor property, as contended what reversion- to decide undertake do any, have in.

ary grantor,might rights, Elna Porter died

the event defendant by R. The Bullock. heirs without J. question would in determination litigation parties to this not. persons

volve interpretation which were questions of case. decision of this reached the defendant hold therefore

We of a life owner estate Elna Porter is question real estate entire contingent remainderman is a plaintiff at the time of qualifying subject to her bodily heir of Elna Porter aas

death no vested or sever- Having Bullock. R.

J. able interest, not entitled plaintiff is Stewart, Mo. Noyes v. partition. McGee, 333; 354 Mo. Dodd 235 S.W.2d 231. is affirmed. judgment concur.

All *2 Sedalia, respond- McCloskey, C. John Bessie Perkins.

ent ROSE, Special Judge. V. C. 19S4, In October while the automobile defendant-respondent was Bessie Perkins defendant-respondent Farm Mutual Insurance Com- Automobile pany insurance which she was the named John Perkins, plaintiff-appellant, whose relation- ship, any, if to Bessie Perkins is not shown presented and under the is. situation here immaterial, driving was the automobile permission being passenger her she upset, therein. The car Bessie Perkins claiming alleged injuries thereby certain re- Perkins, ceived to. be the fault of sued John upon him called the- he State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to defend him. refused to do on the latter

This terms of ground that making insured was excluded insured and against an additional a claim unpro- was the additional insured likewise event. tected company to af- Upon the refusal brought him Perkins ford John against the defendants for a declara- a suit rights and lia- tory judgment defining parties hereto under the bilities of the above In his. surance contract mentioned. petition plaintiff alleging differ- after parties regarding between the cover- ences alleged that under the age also provi- liable because of the Safety Respon- of the Motor Vehicle sions seq. sibility 303.010 et Law. § separate The defendant filed a and in the alternative to dismiss motion portion re- were denied strike Safety Respon- garding the Motor Vehicle sibility Per- defendant Bessie Law. separate be- kins filed a motion dismiss jus- no cause of claim stated that no controversy pleaded. The trial ticiable Hayes Durley, & Sedalia, appellant. judgment entered a made and over- court part ruling Company’s of defendant Wesner, Sedalia, Wesner respond- allegations pertaining to strike motion ent State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

605. “C pe- Law, finding plaintiff’s and further “III. Definition Insured. entitling claim him failed to state tition *3 petition sought relief in his respect bodily “With to the insurance for obligat- was and Company is not Insurance injury liability, property damage liabil- plaintiff pay any judg- ed to defend or to ity payments unquali- atid for medical him might against which be rendered ment fied wor'd ‘insured’ in- includes Perkins, both the suit of sustained Bessie any person sured and also while- includes peti- to and dismissed the motions dismiss using any person the automobile or tion. organization legally responsible for the use- thereof, provided the of the actual use au- provisions material to The by tomobile is with named insured or case are follows: a determination of this as permission.” his “D “A “Insuring Agreements “Exclusions —This Policy Apply. Not Does Bodily Coverage Injury Liabil- “(e) A, “I. Under Coverage any obliga- to A— ity. tion for which the any Company or insured as his may any insurer liable under pay sums behalf of insured all “To on law; Compensation Workmen’s the- or to legally become obli- which insured shall any family insured member or bodily pay damages gated to because of residing insured as. the same household disease, death injury, including sickness or the insured.” therefrom, any resulting at time sustained “E by any person, aris- accident and caused ownership, out ing of the maintenance or “Conditions to 12 inclusive the- to of the coverages use automobile.” coverage or noted thereunder. “Coverage Property Damage Liabil- Final “6. Laws— B— ity. Coverages A and B. this; pay on of the sums “To behalf insured all “Such insurance as afforded insured shall obli- legally injury liability become property or gated pay to damages injury liability damage because of comply pro- shall with the property, including to or destruction Financial Re- visions thereof, of use loss caused accident and sponsibility any province Law of state or arising ownership, out of the respect maintenance applicable which shall be with to. use of the any automobile.” such -owner- arising out of the ship, maintenance or use of automo-

“B during policy period; bile to the extent Coverage limits of re- Defense, Supplementary “II. Settlement law, quired by such but in event ex- no Payments. the limits cess of stated in this respects The by policy. agrees “As the insurance to reimburse afforded Company any payment the other terms of this Cover- Company A and B ages which would not have been shall: obligated to make terms of this “(a) any against defend suit except agreement for the contained sickness, disease, injury, alleging paragraph.” in this destruction, seeking ac- on pertinent thereof, provisions Other in- count even if such ground- suit is fraudulent; less, agreements false or are: “The but the sured respect any person investigation, with make such insurance negotiation to settlement other the named insured organization claim or suit than expedient.” apply: deems comply proof responsibility to any person organization, or financial to “(a) to thereof, provisions Chapter. with the In operating said any agent employee quot- referring to the statutes above are repair shop, public garage, public park- ing respective from the briefs. last agency, service station or sales of this place, respect aris- enactment law is found ing seq. thereof; page Laws of 569 et ing operation Missouri out of the respect any employee “(b) answering plaintiff’s assertion sickness, an- jury death of to or disease or ambiguous are defendant employer in- employee same other Company argues that six condition *4 in employment jured in course of such the policy specifically provided the it is an maintenance arising out of the by policy such insurance is afforded the in of of the business or use the automobile .bodily injury liability comply shall employer.” such Safety the of the Vehicle Responsibility province Law of state is general Plaintiff contends that the rule applicable respect which shall be to protected un- that the additional insured is liability arising out the owner- by brought policy in the der a suit ship, the maintenance or use of the Vehi- named insured. That the Motor and agrees the reimburse ais Responsibility Law of Missouri cle payment is company, any. which it the by parcel policy part force and upon make it would called and which ex- paragraph (e) the and that if law except for obligated make have been asserts, what the means clusions paragraph in the agreement the contained Sec- it is in conflict with it because is void condition six. void That if not tion statute, said the then conflict with as in Lynch in As stated v. National paragraph provision the sections and Co., Mo.App., 278 Life Accident Ins. and Coverage A Section designated as 32, firmly 33: “The rule estab S.W.2d is insuring agreement I the and 3 of policies, insurance lished Missouri con- which must be ambiguity create an contracts, in receive reasonable like other Company, the Insurance against strued construing terpretations, and that protection to thereby afford which would n discharge their - the courts terms of a insured. the additional they give ascertain ef duty full when Company, takes Defendant, Insurance dis intention of .the parties, fect to the lia- position an automobile that where they by entered have closed contract an exclusion clause * * bility policy contains * into. un- providing that principle that when terms an “The specified then under conditions der certain equivo ambiguous, insurance contract are cover- there is no specified conditions those so that the intention contract; policy.is cal or uncertain that the age under clearly any (cid:127)parties ascertained cannot unambiguous and excludes clear construction, question ordinary rules of additional against claim against to be The able terms are construed by the insured. is insurer and favor further contends Insurance * * * voluntary equally settled. ‘When there pol- well purely is policy herein ambiguity, no there is room for con Vehicle no icy not a Motor Unequivocal Chap- language provided struction. is to be Policy as defined plain meaning given though in an V.A.M.S. That con- found 303 RSMo ter * * n n ef- insurance contract. This is so does not become 6 of dition considering provi when restrictive been certified even until such has fective to, accepted policy. Wendorff to, by the De- sion of v. Missouri delivered Revenue, Life Ins. 318 Mo. partment S.W.2d Unit, Liability Policy as 99 A.L.R. a Motor 615].’” [57 damage Missouri vehicle nor any Before the 'enactment property by, Safety Responsibility owned to, charge rented or transported in this of law doubt the insured. From there .was no about quotations Neu from the State. case of Sibothan set out in this opinion bert, loc. cit. from the it Mo.App., foregoing is clear that the requirements while the meets that: “But said every statute in weight way except the rule that supports save and authority question clause the absence of exclusion whether a claim insured against company’s wise affected liability is no Perkins excluded John which, , true, person injured would' also result in the fact withdrawal of policy, himself insured under we know from Per- John kins as an additional of no dissent from that where insured. the view clause, contains such a is to Plaintiff-Appellant cites the case of New be given relieving full force and effect York Cas. Lewellen, Co. 184 F.2d company where such a Judge wherein Riddick U. S. * ** As a *5 is-presented. mat situation Appeals, Eighth Court of Circuit said: fact, support in ter of the cases cited “By express its terms policy the incor majority practically holding, of the all of porated provisions the Motor Ve upon lay them stress fact .one Safety hicle Responsibility ofAct Missouri such inducing the considerations a con represents pub noted The above. policy struction of the was omission State, lic policy "purpose being its liability excluding from it clause in of a 'public injury of the injury person case of to within the a damage by "operation or motor 'of ve group of those insured.” upon public points hicles highways, "and interpretation ato liberal coverages of the The Safety policy cáse”, the" present and the Act first its way found into the law of this Dyche cases of Bostian, Mo., 233 S.W. 2 of (a) State 1945. Subsection subd. 2d 721 and Homan v. Employers Reinsurance 18 of provided that Act a rp., 650, Co 289, 345 Mo. 136 S.W.2d motor liability policy vehicle as the term 127 authority A.L.R. 163 as to the effect person is used therein should insure the provisions of the Act are to be person and using therein other part construed as policy a herein. responsible, for the said use of motor express vehicle or motor vehicles with it poli Of course is correct that the implied permission, of said insured and cy provisions cannot contravene Missouri provided what might be con- exclusions is, The question Law. do do sol they policy, tained in such and a result the provisions policy here considered are In the case of Schenke State governed by to be said act amend- 301, Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. 246 Wis. thereto made before the issuance of ments 817, by Plaintiff-Appellant cited 16 N.W.2d .provision above policy. has re- The decided an omnibus now a part mained effect since clause violated Wisconsin Statute on 1953, Law Missouri of Section subject, -the but court did not’ decide 303.190. V.A.M.S. § could be gen what>limitations made under exceptions up the exclusion clauses. In the Act sets eral case of lawfully policy Klapprote, included in 263 Wis. may Olander liability insurance. That it it was held that statutory vehicle N.W.2d motor pertaining right insure under workmen’s to the insurer’s need not restrictions injury pre death under compensation, of an limit its will to provisions engaged insured while also employee pertaining over vail other these under employment, than domestic of With authorities thereto. their insured, engaged opera- particular while we do' necessarily situations tion, repair exclusionary disagree. maintenance If the motor equally to the named not conflict the ad in suit do opinion. of the ditional provision with a dissenting Missouri Law then the the Motor conform shall American Mut. Ins. Co. v. Responsibility Act of Vehicle Ocean Acc. Corp., Guar. 87 N.H. applicable, state case Mis where this Hampshire’s A. which considered New souri, ambiguity does not create Act, is was held that the Act did not against the which must be resolved compel the carry owner of automobile Plaintiff-Appellants Company in line with liability insurance and that such an Act cited authorities such as Chamberlain v. prohibit registration a mo- Ass’n, Mutual Ben. Acc. Mo. Health and tor vehicle without certificate of App., Mary 260 S.W.2d Daub v. 790 and insurance then the prohibit Act does not Co., Mo.App., land Cas. 58. the making of a different kind of has learning judicial great amount of pleaded. exclusions (Em- n been subject con- expended upon the phasis ours.) states in different sideration Automo example In the case of Farm Mut. For varying circumstances. 913, 55 Arghyris, bile Ins. Co. v. 189 Va. Johnson, 215 Minn. Pearson v. case of case, Virginia the court to S.E.2d favorable 357 cited 10 N.W.2d person operating that where a insured’s years two about written respondents was permission latter’s Minnesota passage of the before leaving an acci states, charged with the scene of Responsibility Act. In some cooperate required dent and refused order obviate Virginia, such as *6 a claim in defense of application the Act question about plaintiff Company 1948, the was not liable. The in amended was law the state insisted under the terms of Vir pro- is that “It 1948, 201, c. as follows: Acts Responsibility Vehicle Act the ginia Motor provisions of this vided however Company absolutely was liable. court policy of insur- not act shall voluntary act held that was liability thereunder except toas ance holder and the between proof as curred certification thereof after having and it been certified the was not (Emphasis responsibility.” financial applicable. ours.) dis- room for there has been some That Automobile In the case of State Mut. dissenting opin- by several pute Sinclair, 267, D.C., F.Supp. evidenced Co. 96 Ins. v. Kentucky ions. which the insured’s give failure to the insurer notice of several appropriate it to review think We in which an automobile covered accident United leading decisions liability policy was as soon involved Hawkeye Security Ins. Co. In States. practicable, as it held this thereafter was 890, Cir., was held F.2d it Myers, 210 7 a breach of the terms so constituted provides that law which Illinois under the obligation to absolve the insurer from as license has been person driver's whose against in actions to defendant suspended privileges driver’s revoked for in- the driver of automobile may, proof shall, persons file and other juries sustained lia- respond in ability to a judgment amount on resulting from the bility incurred thereafter plaintiff. jury verdict for The court ownership operation of automobile. holding in so the absence evidence filed has not been That or insured’s driver’s driver’s license Secretary accepted State registration sus- policy. is not a pended and that was certified 596, proof responsibility of financial Frye Theige, 253 Wis. 34 N. 793, general held that a ex Financial the State Act the W.2d applied was not clause was valid where liable. clusion

609 ported very language study in. similar We believe of Mis above case. Safety Responsibility Law its terms that under souri discloses Responsi- reading of the Texas operator involved of a motor vehicle Law, bility 6701h, Texas Art. Vernon’s ten must within this state an accident in Statutes, on foregoing which the decision to our days report the matter thereafter based, sub- shows that Texas law days if within 20 Director of Revenue stantially the same as that Missouri evidence,is not filed satisfactory therefrom says: the court operator is not latter, with the pro suspension subject security and voluntary “The Texas act is a rather 303.060, Laws of Mo. visions of Section than a compulsory responsibility financial he had 1953, act, states, § under the statutes of other liability policy as an automobile in effect comparable provisions, which contain 45 he shall then within subsec. stated many find decisions line with the above report suspend the (cid:127)days after the accident Kentucky Farm Bureau result. Mut. Ins. operator se unless license Miles, (cid:127)driver’s Ky., 928; Co. v. 267 S.W.2d State receipt curity deposited, or in case of Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Arghy remaining judgment copy of a of certified ris, S.E.2d 16; 189 Va. 55 Bu Farm sixty days or more. unsatisfied reau Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Ham Cir., mer, 793; 4 Compen 177 F.2d of the Act de- 303.210 [303.190] sation Ins. v. Bankers Indemnity Fund Ins. ” “ liability policy’ ‘motor vehicle fines a Cir., Co., 368; Brodsky 9 106 F.2d v. Mo operator’s policy of mean owner’s torists’ Ins. Cas. 112 170 N.J.L. provided insurance certified 243; Id., 143; A. N.J.L. A. 303.200 or Section Section 303.190 [303.170] McLaughlin Surety Corp., v. Central & Ins. responsi- proof of financial [303.180] 440; 166 A. Ocean Ac N.J.Misc. bility. Corp., cident & Guarantee Ltd. v. Peerless Works, Cleaning Dyeing & 162 A. McCarthy As stated in the case 1185; Indemnity Letson v. Sun N.J.Misc. Co., Texas, Tex.Civ.App., Insurance Co. of *7 519; Id., 147 264 Misc. N.Y.S. 836, 837, a cer- the need for such 965; App.Div. 269 N.Y.S. Cohen tificate of insurance does not until arise Metropolitan App.Div. v. Ins. Cas. after there been a accident. Sec- has first 340, 252 N.Y.S. 841.” penalty gives tion 303.130 the [303.100] upon receipt incurred the Director of a In the of Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. copy per- a a judgment against certified Hammer, Ins. Co. F.2d the son covered the Act as above stated. United Appeals, States Court of Fourth proof By foregoing of finan- reason Circuit, that under the responsibility necessary cial for the re- Virginia the Safety Responsibility suspension a of a license and moval Act required the same referred policies registration on account which occurred of only, did and ato motor vehicle prior proof may a accident. Such liability policy -which had' not been certified Revenue, by furnishing the Director of Act, although under the opin- dissenting Unit, Safety Responsibility a certificate ion was filed.' only provision showing coverage and the We also find that our Section insurance occurs in absolute cases Laws of Missouri

where a certificate has been furnished. 303.- § 190, is identical with the de- Iowa Statute on This 'because Sec. 303.210 the Act . subject, being the that 321A.21, fines a Section as (52 172, 21, G.A.) Acts 1947 ch. one has been certified. which Under § pleadings the case Hoosier in this case no certificate Cas. Co. of has Indian apolis, Fox, F.Supp. been furnished to the Director of Revenue Ind. required by one United States District Court N. nor is in advance D. Iowa first This E. D. in sup- sought accident. view is a case where insurer foregoing nonliability un- view of find judgment of declaratory cor on reached the trial court result der interprets rectly our insured suit and part of the fraud ground, of on adopts the act-;. policy after own follows procurement in most of prevailing' rule majority was involved motor sured’s .vehicle find parties were and' we are unable to United States other two accident in which grounds judg it. The filed a notice to disturb insured sufficient injured and after the Fi- ment is affirmed. pursuant Iowa Motor Responsibility Act that nance and effect, absence of in the BROADDUS, JJ., concur. CAVE explicit contractual"'provision or express persons injured provision giving statutory Rehearing Motion for On of the insured superior to those rights as between voidable if the were because of fraud PER CURIAM. insurer and subject also it was held procurement n appellant has filed motion for injured as to contingency the same rehearing or in the alternative to transfer státing that the kind parties,'the court Supreme stating this case Court Iowa Act one in the referred opinion clearly original decide proof of future been certified which has the, policy whether insurance itself words “mo- responsibility. The' financial ambiguous because of conflict between being used policy” tor vehicle provision's paragraph designated art, reference having a term of the act as insuring and section III of the proof policies certified only to agreements paragraph (e) of the ex- Act. proof section of clusions. referring stating Court The Iowa question provides: Coverage A in of State Automo cases to the fact Liability. pay Injury To on behalf “Bodily Sinclair; Farm Co. bile Ins. Mutual the insured all sums Hammer, v.Co. Mutual Auto. Ins. Bureau legally pay as obligated to shall become Automobile Ins. Farm Mutual and State * * * , injury because of supra, arose stat Arghyris, v.Co. arising out caused Iowa’s, having security and both like utes ownership, maintenance use the auto- proof provisions. mobile.” adopted general widely rule is That the Insuring agreements III of the *8 United decision is shown respect Insured. “Definition of With Louisiana, in D.W. District Court States liability, bodily injury for the insurance Co., v. Zealand Ins. Ltd. case of New property damage liability medi- 642, 647, F.Supp. where Holloway, 123 unqualified ‘in- payments cal word have Hunter states: Judge District “We includes also sured’ insured and by Louisiana find decisions unable to been any person using while the auto- includes sitting- by federal courts or courts Lou any person organization or mobile therefore, We, subject. turn isiana on responsible thereof, pro- for the use legally states of other who jurisprudence to the actual use of the vided the uniform Motor Vehicle adopted' the- have permis- named insured with his With but Law. one Safety Responsibility inapplicable certain (Then follows sion.” every other court this exception, coun material.) same issue has resolved with the try faced namely: (e) is: “This not way, Exclusion does the Motor same it the- any A to apply coverage obligation under has no effect unless any actually required company insured or which the' certi may any be liable under the Act.” his insurer under fied

6U law; the in- or to ditions compensation of the policy word, workmen’s below lo- ' - nn family of the any member of the cated in the center page. sured household in the same residing- It us, seems laying aside technical ob- the insured.” jections, the policy point at simply this states that this policy apply does not to the A coverage does Appellants argues instired. The fact that there is a semicolon except any claim the named not after the first paragraph clause insured. That against an additional the word “or” before the words “to to who it makes no distinction as sured” we feel destroy cannot plain but covers the claims claimant meaning of the paragraph under considera- person ,of who is. under he regardless That tion. The fact that ungrammatical it is exclusionary paragraph construction mispünctuated, is, if it as urged by appel- apply:, reads: “This does not under lant cannot avail plain. if the meaning is A; coverage insured.” That proper construction grammatical under the In the case of Morris State Farm paragraph paragraph, of that means lMutua Automobile Insurance 88 Ga. coverage A not does App. 844, 354, 357, 78 S.E.2d where the inter language is If this insured. to the plaintiff in complained error about exclusion then this preted as written presence aof semicolon before the clause “ ” completely away from company has taken ‘or to the insured’ court said: “The which the the insured plaintiffs in argue error punctua phrase That the coverage A. gives exception important. tion We do back refers the insured” “or to not consider the semicolon before the last A”. it can phrase That “under clause beginning ‘or etc.’ anything makes difference back to whatever. We do not said to refer think, not the meaning would be in separated, by the preceding clause which is way different the semicolon ivas omitted therefore, Paragraph when (e) semicolon. replaced by a colon or a comma.” designated paragraph cover considered ambiguity. ques On the age creates an Johnson, the case Pearson punctuation appellant cites the case tion of loc; Minn. N.W.2d cit. Orlosky Haskell, 304 155 A. Pa. clause identical -with the- one in this 112, 114, Supreme Penn where the Court of quoted, except only ap that a-comma construing sylvania in statute of that state pears where here there a semicolon. appears qualifying phrase “A said: In that case the court without hesitation paragraph before a semicolon approved the exclusion clause and from the, bridge leap over or semicolon study the context of the policy there Pro what 'follows semicolon. qualify set out and considered we feel no other qualify precedes what visos ordinarily possible. course was follows them.” what We have considered other cases cited by appellant concerning policy case the in suit marked In this *9 “A” appellant’s ambiguous particu- Exhibit is before the held to court their top page that at three it lar facts but we that they shows do find rule in black-faced italics this case. On 'the other stated “This hand con- apply:” litigation and then down the have left siderable we reviewed con- directly page this matter find cerning side "of the half below such no substantial appear separate paragraphs authority seven supporting statement for a different con- including paragraph (e). of material clusion than we have reached. It On follows page appear rehearing eight side the motion for right-hand in The paragraphs. paragraphs All separate are to transfer case to alternative the Su- this, preme Below about' Court should and the lettered. covers same is upper appear page, hereby overruled. the con- ordered one-third