 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Recalde v. ITT Hartford10/31/1997
ing business does not contradict the fact that he owned the automobile as an individual.").
Recalde contends that the decision in Consolidated American Ins. Co. v. Landry, 525 So. 2d 567 (La. Ct. App. l988), is applicable. There, however, the sole proprietor operated two different businesses: an apartment rental business and a carpentry business. The insurance policy in question insured the individual doing business as Landry's Apartments. Thus, the court found no coverage for a claim arising out of his separate carpentry business. That outcome does not address the issue presently before this Court and, in a more recent case, Trombley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 640 So. 2d 8l5 (La. Ct. App. l994), the Louisiana court specifically held that a sole proprietor doing business under a trade name was not "a juridical person separate and apart from the natural person . . . ." Id. at 817.
Nor is Hertz Corp. v. Ashbaugh, 607 P.2d ll73 (N.M. l980), also relied upon by Recalde, persuasive. There the court found no coverage for a temporary substitute vehicle owned by the proprietor under an insurance policy issued to him "d/b/a Corky's Wrecker Service." That court relied upon an inapposite case involving insurance issued to a partnership. See id. at 1176 (citing Farley v. American Auto Ins. Co., 72 S.E.2d 520 (W. Va. 1952)). Therefore, we do not find the Hertz decision persuasive, especially in light of the authorities discussed above.
III.
We conclude, therefore, that a sole proprietorship is not a legal entity separate and distinct from the individual owner doing business in that name, and hence the certified question will be answered in the negative.
Certified question answered in the negative.
Page 1 2 3 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|