Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Richards

Decision Date20 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. C--2078,C--2078
Citation100 N.J.Super. 180,241 A.2d 468
PartiesATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, and Sapolin Paints Inc., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Mary A. RICHARDS, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of EdwardRichards, deceased, National Lead Company, a corporation and The Employers'Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., a corporation, Defendants.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court

Richard J. Badolato, Newark, for plaintiff, Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. (Schneider & Morgan, Newark, attorneys).

Sonia Napolitano, Newark, for defendant, Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd. (Pindar, McElroy, Connell & Foley, Newark, attorneys).

FURMAN, J.S.C.

This litigation is to determine whether there is insurance coverage under a loading and unloading clause in an automobile liability policy. The facts are undisputed on motion and cross-motion for summary judgment (R.R. 4:58).

Edward Richards was unloading a 50-pound bag of Bentone from the truck of his employer, National Lead Company, at the loading platform of Sapolin Paints, Inc. He fell into an open stairwell and sustained injuries which resulted in his death next day. No eye witness to his fall is known. A Sapolin employee had directed the National Lead truck driver, William Tappen, where to pull up at the loading platform. Tappen and the decedent were unloading the truck without the assistance or participation of any Sapolin employee. Tappen testified by deposition, which was stipulated, that he heard the decedent fall, turned about, saw a three-foot slat of wooden dunnage, which was not used in the unloading process, 'rocking back and forth' next to the open stairwell and the decedent sprawled at the bottom. He testified that his truck had not carried dunnage that day. Inferentially, Richards tripped over the slat of dunnage and fell backwards into the open stairwell.

After recovery of workmen's compensation death benefits, Mary Richards, the widow, brought a tort action against Sapolin for wrongful death and survivor damages (N.J.S. 2A:31--1 et seq., N.J.S.A.). The present plaintiff, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, filed an answer in that action as general liability carrier for Sapolin. It requested by letter that the present defendant, Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., undertake the defense as automobile liability carrier for National Lead. Employers' Liability refused on the ground that the claim did not 'fall within the coverage' of the automobile liability policy. Atlantic Mutual replied that it would hold Employers' Liability responsible for any judgment, costs and expenses. Atlantic Mutual negotiated the settlement of Richards versus Sapolin Paints, Inc. for $30,000.

Mary Richards's contentions in the death action are concisely stated in the pretrial order:

'The defendant was negligent, individually and by an (sic) through its servants and agents in that it failed to provide decedent with a safe place to work, negligently left pieces of wood on the loading platform causing a nuisance, dangerous and hazardous condition and maintained a stairwell without guard rails as a direct and proximate result of which the decedent sustained the injuries which resulted in his death.'

The loading and unloading clause in the automobile liability policy issued by Employers' Liability is in standard form. The insurer undertakes to pay damages which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury or death caused by accident and arising out of use of the automobile. The definition of 'insured' extends to any person using the automobile with the permission of the named insured. Use of the automobile includes 'the loading and unloading thereof.'

Relying upon Maryland Casualty Co. v. N.J. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co., 48 N.J.Super. 314, 137 A.2d 577 (App.Div.), affirmed 28 N.J. 17, 145 A.2d 15 (1958) and Drew Chem. Corp. v. Amer. Fore Loyalty Group, etc., 90 N.J.Super. 582, 218 A.2d 875 (App.Div.1966), Atlantic Mutual argues that because Edward Richards sustained the accident leading to his death while unloading the named insured's truck, Ipso facto the burden of coverage must be borne by the automobile liability carrier.

This argument brushes past distinguishable factual backgrounds in the Maryland Casualty and Drew Chemical cases. Both stemmed from litigation in which an employee of the general liability carrier's named insured was charged with negligence: in unloading in Maryland Casualty and in preparing to unload in Drew Chemical. Judge Goldmann in the latter case quotes favorably from Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 228 F.Supp. 896, 900 (D.Md.1964): '* * * all that is required to establish coverage is that the act or omission which resulted in the injury was necessary to carry out the loading or unloading.'

In the tort case leading to the case Sub judice the negligence alleged was breach of Sapolin's duty to its business invitee to maintain a reasonably safe place to work. The regular inspection of the loading platform, the remedying of a hazardous condition or the communication of an adequate warning may be viewed broadly as necessary for safe unloading. But the fulfillment of such duty was not a step in the specific operation of unloading the National Lead truckload. To construe the maintenance of the loading platform as a 'use of the automobile' in unloading would be to extend automobile liability coverage to negligence occurring prior to the arrival of the truck, that is, failing to remove dunnage from proximity to the open stairwell, and to a nuisance grounded in negligence, that is, the stairwell without guardrail. No New Jersey reported...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Shippers Development Co. v. General Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 1969
    ...York cases last referred to were, after a review of numerous cases, crystallized as follows in Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company v. Richards (1968) 100 N.J.Super. 180, 185, 241 A.2d 468, 471: '* * * the sounder result favored by most courts is that automobile liability insurance under a loa......
  • Kennedy v. Jefferson Smurfit Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1997
    ...a condition necessary to the act of unloading nor had it any reasonable connection to that work"); Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Richards, 100 N.J.Super. 180, 183, 241 A.2d 468 (Ch.Div.1968), aff'd, 105 N.J.Super. 48, 251 A.2d 134 (App.Div.1969) (finding loading dock owner not covered under tru......
  • Lesniakowski v. Amerada Hess Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 10, 1988
    ...A.2d 1160; Cenno v. West Virginia Paper & Pulp Co., supra, 109 N.J.Super. at 45-47, 262 A.2d 223; Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Richards, 100 N.J.Super. 180, 183, 241 A.2d 468 (Ch.Div.1968), aff'd 105 N.J.Super. 48, 251 A.2d 134 (App.Div.1969). Amerada did nothing to effect the loading o......
  • American Home Assur. v. First Specialty
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 20, 2008
    ...the court, id. at 402-403, 688 A.2d 89, distinguished one of the main cases relied on by American, Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Richards, 100 N.J.Super. 180, 183, 241 A.2d 468 (1968), aff'd, 105 N.J.Super. 48, 251 A.2d 134 (1969), a case in which the premises owner, prior to the arrival of a t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT