Posted on : January 11, 2017, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Damages Caused by a Community Property Vehicle
Property a spouse brings to a marriage remains his or her separate property. However, the spouses can agree to convert the property to community property. It can also be converted to community property by gift. In Sellers v. Allstate Ins. Co., 555 P.2d 1113 (1976) the Arizona Supreme Court discussed these issues in the context of an insurance issue.
Facts and Procedure
Two months after Mr. Collison and Mrs. Collison married, they were in an automobile accident with Mr. Sellers and Mrs. Sellers and their minor children. Mr. Collison was driving a 1957 Cadillac which he owned before marriage. He was on his way to the Lowboy Lounge in Phoenix, Arizona to have a beer and cash a check. He then planned to pick up his wife at her place of work and drive her home.
Mrs. Collison owned a 1964 Chrysler automobile, insured by Allstate Insurance Company. She usually drove herself to work and back in it. The day of the accident, it was in a garage undergoing repairs. The Sellers sued for damages. They won a judgment. They claimed that Mrs. Collison’s Allstate insurance policy covered Mr. Collison and his Cadillac at the time the accident happened. They had a writ of garnishment served on Allstate. Allstate denied any liability.
The court granted Allstate a summary judgment. The Sellers appealed.
Damages Caused by a Community Property Vehicle.
The Allstate Policy
The Sellers argue that Mr. Collison’s car was covered as a “replacement automobile” under the Allstate policy. The policy defines the relevant terms:
“named insured’ means the individual named on the Supplement Page, and his spouse if a resident of the same household; * * * `owned automobile’ means the vehicle described on the Supplement Page, and, as defined herein, any replacement automobile, any additional automobile, any temporary substitute automobile, * * * owned by the named insured; `replacement automobile’ means any other private passenger or utility automobile of which the named insured acquires ownership, provided it replaces the owned automobile; `additional automobile’ means an additional private passenger or utility automobile of which the named insured acquires ownership, provided notice of its delivery be given to Allstate within the policy term then current, or if delivery is within 30 days before the end of such term, then within 30 days after delivery; `temporary substitute automobile’ means any automobile, including a trailer, while temporarily used as a substitute for the owned automobile or trailer when withdrawn from normal use because of its breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction; * * *”
From this, it is clear that the policy covered Mr. Collison while he was driving her Chrysler or any replacement automobile.
Substitute Vehicle Clause
The Sellers first argue that the Cadillac was a car temporarily substituted for Mrs. Collison’s Chrysler. The policy extends coverage temporarily to an insured using an alternate vehicle because the regular car was being repaired.
An alternate automobile is one temporarily used in place of the insured car. In the present case, Mrs. Collison usually drove to and from work in the Chrysler car. The accident occurred on Tuesday. If Mr. Collison drove Mrs. Collison home in his Cadillac after work, it would have been a substitute for her Chrysler. It would have furnished her transportation. But Mr. Collison had driven to the Lowboy Lounge. He was using the Cadillac for his convenience.
Since Mr. Collison usually drove the Cadillac, he was not using it as a substitute for Mrs. Collison’s Chrysler on this part of his trip.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Hildebrand Law was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
The Sellers next argue that the policy covers the Cadillac as an “additional automobile.” They claim that Mrs. Collison acquired an ownership interest in the Cadillac vehicle under Arizona’s community property laws.
In Arizona, the status of the property as community or separate is established at the time of marriage. Assets which are the separate property of one spouse before the marriage retain that character after the marriage. However, this can be altered by agreement between the spouses, or by a gift of one to the other.
Community Property Vehicle Causing Damages.
Mr. Collison testified that he considered the Cadillac to belong to both himself and Evelyn after the marriage. Mrs. Collison testified that the couple invested some $400 of community property in repairs to the Chrysler. The Court ruled that there was a factual question as to whether Mr. Collison’s Cadillac stayed separate goods or became community property. A motion for summary judgment does not resolve factual issues. Since a genuine issue was raised, the Court found that it was an error for the lower court to grant summary judgment to Allstate.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment below.
As Seen on CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News