## Facts

- A minor, Peter Haskell, was injured in an automobile accident on August 6, 1955, while Albert Siegmund was driving.
- Walter Peterson owned a trucking business and held a fleet automobile liability policy listing, among other vehicles, a 1942 Chevrolet four-door sedan.
- The policy extended coverage to permissive users of scheduled vehicles.
- After learning of a claim that one of Peterson’s vehicles was involved, the insurer opened a file and took written statements from Peterson (two statements) and Siegmund (one statement) indicating Siegmund was driving Peterson’s 1942 Chevrolet with permission.
- Haskell obtained a $35,000 negligence judgment against Siegmund (and another defendant), which became final after appellate review.
- Haskell then brought garnishment proceedings against the insurer, asserting Siegmund was an insured under Peterson’s policy and the insurer must satisfy the judgment.
- Peterson died before the garnishment trial, and Siegmund did not testify; the insurer objected to production and admission of the statements from its file, asserting hearsay and work-product protection.
- The insurer’s claims attorney had sent a letter stating Siegmund was driving Peterson’s 1942 Chevrolet at the time of the accident while reserving positions about permission and notice.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Siegmund was an insured under Peterson’s fleet policy because he drove a covered vehicle with Peterson’s permission and the insurer received timely notice.
2. Whether Peterson’s and Siegmund’s written statements to the insurer’s investigator were admissible, or excluded as hearsay or protected work product.
3. Whether the insurer’s claims-attorney letter constituted an admission binding the insurer on coverage-related facts.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Haskell in the garnishment proceeding.
- The court held there was sufficient competent evidence that the vehicle involved was the scheduled 1942 Chevrolet and that Siegmund drove it with Peterson’s permission.
- Peterson’s statements were admissible as declarations against pecuniary interest because Peterson was unavailable and the statements exposed him to financial liability.
- Any error in admitting Siegmund’s statements for their truth was harmless because Peterson’s admissible statements supplied substantially the same proof.
- The insurer’s work-product objection was rejected; the statements were obtained in routine claims investigation and were properly produced and used at trial.
- Proof that Siegmund was driving Peterson’s car supported a rebuttable presumption of permission/agency, and the insurer failed to rebut it.

## Legal Principles

- A deceased declarant’s statement may be admitted as a declaration against pecuniary interest when it is against the declarant’s financial interest, the declarant is unavailable, and circumstances support reliability.
- Statements by an insurer’s authorized agent (including a claims attorney) concerning material facts may constitute admissions binding on the insurer.
- When coverage turns on permissive use, evidence that the driver operated the owner’s vehicle can create a rebuttable presumption of permission/agency; the insurer bears the burden to rebut the presumption with contrary evidence.
- Materials generated in ordinary claims investigation, including witness/insured statements taken by an insurer’s investigator, may be discoverable and not protected as attorney work product.

## Conclusion

The court required the insurer to satisfy the tort judgment through garnishment because the record supported permissive-use coverage for Siegmund, Peterson’s statements were admissible against-interest evidence, the insurer’s own correspondence functioned as an admission on key facts, and the insurer failed to rebut the presumption of permission or shield routine investigation statements as work product.


Haskell v. Siegmund, 170 N.E.2d 393 (Ill. App. Ct. 1960)