Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. El Paso Electric Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 10 March 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 526.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 184 S.W. 628 |
Parties | ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO. v. EL PASO ELECTRIC RY. CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; P. R. Price, Judge.
Action by the El Paso Electric Railway Company against the Ætna Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Beall & Kemp and C. W. Croom, all of El Paso, for appellant. Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, and Davis & Goggin, of El Paso, for appellee.
Warranties 1 and 4 read:
The policy also contains these provisions:
During the life of the policy, one Shaklee and a fellow workman named Judia, while engaged in overhead construction work upon appellees' electric railway line in the city of El Paso, sustained severe bodily injuries. Shaklee filed suit against appellee to recover damages resulting from such injuries. A judgment in his favor was rendered on September 26, 1910, in sum of $12,500, which, upon appeal, was affirmed. On November 6, 1911, appellee paid the sum of $13,345 in settlement of the principal and interest due on such judgment, and the further sum of $72.35 costs of court. Appellant, having failed to indemnify appellee for any loss and expense incurred incident to the injuries sustained by Shaklee, filed this suit to recover upon aforementioned policy of insurance.
Under the view which we have of this case, it becomes unnecessary to discuss in detail appellant's assignments, and for the same reason it is unnecessary to in detail state the issues raised by the pleadings and findings of the jury upon the special issues submitted to them. The facts, only, will be stated pertinent to what is considered to be the controlling issue in the case.
The evidence shows that, upon the happening of the accident, written notice was immediately given the insurance company of the accident, with all the information obtainable at the time, and, upon the filing of the suit by Shaklee, the street railway company gave notice of that fact with full particulars, sending the citation to the representatives of the insurance company as soon as the same was served, and demanded of the insurance company that it perform its obligations under the policy, and defend at its own cost, the suit which had been instituted against the assured. Some time after the receipt of these notices, the insurance company denied its liability, claiming the policy did not cover accidents of this character, because the accident was not one incident to or arising out of "overhead construction and reconstruction work," but arose from a distinct and independent cause, that is, from the negligence of the street car company's motorman, operating a street car, which accident was not contemplated or covered by the policy, not being in any way due to the work being carried on. In reply to this contention, the street car company insisted the policy did in fact cover the accident, and that the insurance company should comply with its terms. The insurance company thereafter sent its representative from Dallas to El Paso, who, on reaching El Paso, made investigation, consulted with the attorneys for the insurance company, and also with the officials of the street railway company, and the Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, and, while at El Paso, compromised and settled with Judia his claim growing out of the same accident. Thereafter, the papers in the Shaklee case were placed in the hands of the attorneys for the insurance company, who took charge of the case, carried on negotiations with Shaklee and his attorneys, seeking a compromise and settlement for $6,000. This proposed settlement, however, was rejected by the home office of the insurance company, and later, some time in June or July, 1910, the insurance company took the position that the policy did not cover, and the papers were returned. The street car company, though still insisting that the policy covered and the insurance company was liable, had its attorneys take charge of and defend the Shaklee case.
It appears that the El Paso Electric Railway Company and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation are separate corporate entities, but with close business relations. The former owns and operates an electric street railway line in El Paso. The latter is a repairing and construction company. The Stone & Webster Corporation did all, or nearly all, of the construction work for the railway company. Shaklee was a regular employé of the railway company, but at the time of the injury to him was on the pay roll of the construction company. His status at such time towards the two corporations is disclosed by the testimony which we now quote. Mr. Potter, the general manager of appellee, testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood v. Southern Casualty Co.
...the matters naturally or usually incident thereto. Brown v. Palatine Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 590, 35 S. W. 1060; Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. El Paso Electric Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 628; London Fire Ins. Co. v. Davis, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 348, 84 S. W. 260; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Hearne (T......
-
Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp. v. Northern Texas T. Co.
...Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 590, 35 S. W. 1060; Goddard v. East Texas Fire Ins. Co., 67 Tex. 71, 1 S. W. 906, 60 Am. Rep. 1; Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. El Paso Elec. Ry. Co., 184 S. W. 628. The following are some of the definitions given in the Standard Dictionary (20th Century Edition) of the word "(1) T......
-
Potomac Ins. Co. v. Easley
...App. 560, 133 S. W. 465; Dorroh-Kelly Mercantile Co. v. Orient Ins. Co., 104 Tex. 199, 135 S. W. 1165; Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. El Paso Electric Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 628; Casualty Co. v. Wade, 101 Tex. 102, 105 S. W. Where the language of a policy is fairly susceptible of making ......
-
Dorsey v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co.
...the injury is one of its consequences, and is a result thereof. To illustrate, in each of the cases of Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. El Paso Electric R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 628, and Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Northern Texas Traction Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 212, the employ......