Travelers Ins. Co. v. General Refrigeration & Appliance Co.
| Decision Date | 03 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45160,45160 |
| Citation | 218 So.2d 724 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. GENERAL REFRIGERATION & APPLIANCE COMPANY, Inc. |
John M. Roach, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, Jackson, for appellant.
Ray, Lee & Moore, Jackson, for appellee.
This suit involves the interpretation and construction of certain provisions of a liability insurance policy issued by The Travelers Insurance Company, appellant, to General Refrigeration & Appliance Company, Inc., appellee. The appellee called on the appellant to defend a tort action brought against the appellee and others in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. The appellant refused to defend on the ground that the allegations of the bill of complaint filed in the chancery court did not state a cause of action against the appellee that the appellant was required to defend under the terms of the policy. The appellee was thus forced to employ attorneys to defend the suit.
There was long and protracted litigation; the suit was successfully defended; and the end result was that there was no judgment against the appellee for damages. The attorneys charged their client, the appellee $3,187.50 for successfully defending the suit. The appellee paid the fee and brought suit in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County to recover the $3,187.50 paid. By agreement, the judge tried the case without a jury and found for the appellee.
The policy was for a one-year term, from October 1, 1959, to October 1, 1960. The policy, on its face under Item 3B, styled 'Property Damage Liability,' shows a premium of $20.73 opposite the subhead '1. Premises-Operations.' The limits of liability listed were $5,000 for each accident and $25,000 aggregate.
Under Item 4, styled 'Description of Hazards,' and under the subhead there was typed 'SEE SCHEDULE 3931.' Schedule 3931, attached as an endorsement to the policy, provided:
Advance Premiums
Description of Hazards Coverage A Coverage B
------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical wiring--within buildings
including installation or
repair of fixtures or appliances
Installation of electrical
machinery or auxiliary apparatus
to be separately rated
#5190 9.60 18.00
Stores -- Furniture -- wholesale
or retail--including house
furnishings
#159 11.99 2.73
On Page 2, the policy provides:
II. Defense, Settlement, Supplementary Payments.
With respect to such insurance as is afforded by this policy for bodily injury liability and for property damage liability, the company shall:
(a) defend any suit against the insured alleging such injury, sickness, disease or destruction and seeking damages on account thereof, even if such suit is groundless, false or fraudulent, but the company may make such investigation, negotiation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient; (Emphasis added).
In the chancery court suit, the appellee was charged with having negligently installed a cutoff switch in a fold-back electric oven in the home of complainants.
The appellant contends that this installation or repair work falls within the following provision of the policy:
Division 4. Products-Completed Operations.
(2) operations, if the accident occurs after such operations have been completed or abandoned and occurs away from premises owned, rented or controlled by the named insured; provided, operations shall not be deemed incomplete because improperly or defectively performed or because further operations may be required pursuant to an agreement; provided further, the following shall not be deemed to be 'operations' within the meaning of this paragraph: (a) pick-up or delivery, except from or onto a railroad car, (b) the maintenance of vehicles owned or used by or in behalf of the insured, (c) the existence of tools, uninstalled equipment and abandoned or unused materials and (d) operations for which the classification stated in division 1 of Item 4 of the declarations specifically includes completed operations. (Emphasis added).
Appellant says no premium was charged and no coverage provided for 'products-Completed Operations.' With this contention we cannot agree. It would appear that the charge of negligent installation in the bill of complaint falls within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v. Carrom Health Care Products, Inc.
...true that an insurer "acts at its peril when it refuses to defend a suit against its insured." Travelers Insurance Co. v. General Refrigeration & Appliance Co., 218 So.2d 724, 727 (Miss.1969). See also Martin v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 450 F.2d 542, 550 (5th Cir.1971) (refusal to provide d......
-
Titan Indem. Co. v. City of Brandon, Miss.
...an insurer refuses to defend a suit filed against its insured, the insurer acts at its own peril. Travelers Ins. Co. v. General Refrigeration & Appliance Co., 218 So.2d 724, 726 (Miss. 1969). In determining whether the duty of the insurer to defend its insured has been triggered, the court ......
-
Progressive Gulf Ins. v. Dickerson & Bowen
...Ins. Co., 255 So.2d 667 (Miss.1971); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. East, 240 So.2d 277 (Miss. 1970); Travelers Insurance Co. v. General Refrigeration & Appliance Co., 218 So.2d 724 (Miss.1969). It is a serious duty, requiring a good faith effort to protect the insured's interest in court. Ther......
-
Greenville Shipbuilding Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co.
...to a construction most strongly against the insurer and most favorable to the insured.10 To the same effect is Travelers Ins. Co. v. General Refrigeration & Appliance Co., supra.11 Where the language is plain and unambiguous, however, the Mississippi Supreme Court has enforced the contract ......