Nebraska Supreme Court
Robert Howard, Appellant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellee
March 5, 1993242 Neb. 624
Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for State Farm after concluding that Howard failed to establish an insurable interest in the burned Corvette and that none of his assigned errors warranted relief. The court held that an innocent purchaser of a stolen vehicle may have an insurable interest, but disputed evidence concerning the transaction, vehicle identification numbers, title, and fire created material factual issues about whether Howard was an innocent purchaser. The court also upheld the rulings concerning juror qualifications, impeachment, the amended answer, and summary judgment.
Holding
- Waiver of venire objections and qualification of mutual-insurance policyholders. A party that challenges a venireperson for cause and then passes the panel preserves the previously made cause objection, but a party that does not challenge a venireperson and then passes the panel waives any objection to that person's seating. A holder of an assessable policy issued by a mutual insurer may serve as a juror if the person can decide the case fairly solely on the evidence, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the challenged State Farm policyholders.
- Use of Howard's prior inconsistent statements. State Farm could use Howard's prior inconsistent statements without first laying the traditional impeachment foundation because the statements were admissions of a party opponent.
- Amendment of State Farm's answer. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing State Farm to amend its answer to allege that Howard should have known the Corvette was stolen and had a duty to make further inquiry.
- Unbriefed challenge to characterization in amended answer. The court would not consider Howard's challenge to the characterization concerning an automobile buyer's duty to investigate because the assignment of error was not discussed in his brief.
- Denial of summary judgment and existence of an insurable interest. The district court properly denied Howard's motions for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether he acquired an insurable interest in the Corvette. An innocent subsequent purchaser for value of a stolen vehicle may acquire an insurable interest, but a person who stole the vehicle or purchased it under noninnocent circumstances does not.
Docket S-90-607
Cited authorities
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-103
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1601
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1609
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801
Cited by
- Donald H. Rees and Joan M. Rees, husband and wife v. State of Nebraska, Department of Roads
- Tim Gravel, Appellant v. Roberta Schmidt and William Tomek, Appellees
- Saif Sayah, Appellants v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, a Rhode Island Corporation…
- Joel E. Bisgard, Appellant v. Jerry R. Johnson, Appellee, and Motor Club Insurance Association, Garnishee-Appellee
- State v. Nash
- Joel E. Bisgard, Appellant v. Jerry R. Johnson, Appellee, and Motor Club Insurance Association, Garnishee-Appellee