Johnson v. Holmes Tuttle Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.
1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 2120, 160 Cal. App. 2d 290, 325 P.2d 193 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement to procure public liability insurance for another party is made for the benefit of those members of the public who may be injured by that party, allowing them to sue as third-party beneficiaries for the breach of the agreement.
Facts:
- On November 23, 1953, Phillip and Ruth Caldera went to Holmes Tuttle Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (defendant) to purchase a new Mercury automobile.
- During sales negotiations, Phillip Caldera told the salesman, Harry Rozany, that he wanted 'full coverage insurance'.
- Rozany replied, 'Oh, yes, you are getting it,' and had Caldera sign a blank conditional sales contract.
- The dealership arranged for collision, fire, and theft insurance but failed to procure any public liability and property damage insurance for Caldera.
- On December 11, 1953, Phillip Caldera, while driving the new Mercury, was involved in an accident that injured Willie Mae Johnson and Fletcher Jones (plaintiffs) and damaged Johnson's car.
- Caldera only discovered he lacked liability insurance after the accident had occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie Mae Johnson and Fletcher Jones filed separate lawsuits against Phillip Caldera in a California trial court.
- The trial court entered judgments in favor of Johnson and Jones against Caldera, which went unsatisfied.
- Johnson and Jones then filed this action against Holmes Tuttle Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. in a California trial court, alleging breach of a third-party beneficiary contract.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs based on the jury's verdict.
- The defendant, Holmes Tuttle Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a car dealership's oral agreement with a buyer to procure 'full coverage' liability insurance create an enforceable contract for the benefit of unidentified third parties who are later injured by the buyer's negligent operation of the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Vallee, J.
Yes, a car dealership's oral agreement with a buyer to procure 'full coverage' liability insurance creates an enforceable contract for the benefit of unidentified third parties who are later injured. The court found that an enforceable oral contract existed between the Calderas and the dealership, with Caldera's purchase of the vehicle serving as consideration for the dealership's promise to procure insurance. The term 'full coverage,' the court reasoned, has a common meaning that includes public liability and property damage insurance, and expert testimony was admissible to establish this definition. The court held that the plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries of this agreement. The primary test is whether an intent to benefit a third party appears from the terms of the contract. Since the main purpose of liability insurance is to protect the public from injuries caused by the insured, the contract necessarily contemplated a benefit to third persons. The plaintiffs, as members of the public who were injured, belong to the class of persons for whose benefit the agreement was made, and their identity became certain upon the happening of the accident.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the rights of injured parties under the third-party beneficiary doctrine. By treating an agreement to procure insurance similarly to an actual insurance policy for beneficiary purposes, the court prioritizes public protection over the traditional requirement of privity of contract. The ruling establishes that the intent to benefit a third party can be inferred from the nature of the contract itself, especially in contexts like liability insurance where public safety is a key purpose. This creates a direct cause of action for injured tortfeasors against a promisor who fails to obtain promised liability coverage for its client, thereby increasing the accountability of businesses like car dealerships and insurance agents.
