Avery v. American Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 November 1942
• Docket Number: 38098
• Parties: O. B. Avery, Appellant, v. American Automobile Insurance Company, a Corporation, and American Automobile Fire Insurance Company, a Corporation
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

166 S.W.2d 471

350 Mo. 395

O. B. Avery, Appellant, v. American Automobile Insurance Company, a Corporation, and American Automobile Fire Insurance Company, a Corporation

No. 38098

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 10, 1942

Rehearing Denied December 1, 1942.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Harry F Russell, Judge.

Affirmed.

Clark M. Clifford, Clem F. Storckman and Lashly, Lashly Miller & Clifford for appellant.

(1) The policy of insurance issued to plaintiff by the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company does not constitute "other insurance" within the meaning of those terms as employed in the policy of insurance sued upon, providing that if such "other insurance includes directly or indirectly insurance against loss or expense caused by or arising out of the loading or unloading of any automobile insured hereunder, then this policy shall, during the period covered by such other insurance, entirely cease to cover against any and all such loss or expense," hence that clause of the policy excluding defendant American Automobile Insurance Company's liability was and is not a defense to plaintiff's action. Mathews v. Modern Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 326, 139 S.W. 151; Iuchs v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co., 290 S.W. 456; Cova v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., 100 S.W.2d 23; Meigs v. Ins. Co. of North America, 205 Pa. 275, 54 A. 1053; American Alliance Ins. Co. v. Brady Transfer & Storage Co., 101 F.2d 144; 2 Cooley's Briefs on Insurance, p. 1843. (2) The policy issued to plaintiff by the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company did not cover plaintiff's loss because the accident, and resulting injury to Walsh, was not "caused" by insured's pump, within the terms and meaning of that policy. (a) "Caused" means proximate, legal, efficient, determining cause, and not the one which is nearer in time or place to the injury. Maness v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee, 161 Tenn. 41, 28 S.W.2d 339; Gardner v. United Surety Co., 110 Minn. 291, 125 N.W. 264; German-American Ins. Co. v. Hyman, 42 Colo. 156, 94 P. 27; Cole v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 265 Mich. 246, 251 N.W. 400; Rossini v. Security Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Chatfield, 46 Cal.App. 675, 189 P. 810; New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Rupart, 187 Ky. 671; Lynn Gas & Electric Co. v. Meriden Fire Ins. Co., 158 Mass. 570, 33 N.E. 690; Tracy v. Palmetto Fire Ins. Co., 207 Iowa 1042, 222 N.W. 447; Russell v. German Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, 100 Minn. 528, 111 N.W. 400; Berry v. United Commercial Travelers of America, 172 Iowa 429, 154 N.W. 598; Ploe v. International Indemnity Co., 128 Wash. 480, 223 P. 327; Hartford S. B. I. & Ins. Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 201 F. 617; U.S. Mutual Assn. v. Barry, 131 U.S. 100, 33 L.Ed. 60; Henry Hilp Tailoring Co. v. Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co. of Brooklyn, 157 F. 285; Fire Assn. of Philadelphia v. Evansville Brewing Assn., 73 Fla. 904, 75 So. 196; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U.S. 117, 24 L.Ed. 395; Port Washington Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 300 N.Y.S. 874; Hocking v. British American Assn. Co., 62 Wash. 73; Hall & Hawkins v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 115 Tenn. 513, 92 S.W. 402; Jannetti v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 277 Mass. 434, 178 N.E. 640; Miller v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Assn. of North Carolina, 198 N.C. 572, 152 S.E. 684; Pearcey v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 163 Va. 928, 177 S.E. 843; Walters v. Berry Schools, 40 Ga.App. 751, 151 S.E. 544; U.S. Casualty Co. v. Matthews, 35 Ga.App. 526, 133 S.E. 875; Newmark v. The Liverpool & London Fire & Life Ins. Co., 30 Mo. 160; Cohn v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 96 Mo.App. 315, 70 S.W. 259; Paney v. London Provincial Marine & General Ins. Co., 221 Mo.App. 930, 288 S.W. 788; Cova v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. of N. Y., 100 S.W.2d 23, rehearing denied Jan. 22, 1937; Delamatter v. Home Ins. Co., 233 Mo.App. 645, 126 S.W.2d 262; Barton v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 42 Mo. 156; Wheeler v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 298 Mo. 619, 251 S.W. 924; Dillman v. Burke, 158 Mo.App. 137, 138 S.W. 57; Fetter v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 174 Mo. 256, 73 S.W. 592; Frisbie v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 133 Mo.App. 30, 112 S.W. 1024; 6 Couch, Cyclopedia of Ins. Law (1930), sec. 1463; Muller v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 246 F. 759; Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Katz, 233 F. 31; Lanasa Fruit S. G. & I. Co. v. Universal Ins. Co., 302 U.S. 563, 82 L.Ed. 422. (b) The defective skid being the "proximate cause" of the injury, preceding events are "remote causes" only. Russell v. German Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, supra; Aetna v. Boon, supra; Tracy v. Palmetto Fire Ins. Co., supra; Frisbie v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., supra; Fetter v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, supra; Fed. Life Ins. Co. v. Raley, 130 Tex. 408, 109 S.W.2d 972; Atchison, T. & S. Fe Ry. v. Calhoun, 213 U.S. 1, 53 L.Ed. 671; 1 C. J., p. 470; 6 Couch, Cyclopedia of Ins. Law (1930), sec. 1463; 5 Joyce on Ins. (2 Ed.), sec. 2832, p. 4883. (3) The Hartford policy cannot be construed against the insurer therein, because of the following reasons: (a) The suit is not between the insured and the Hartford, the policy of which is to be interpreted; the rule of strict construction does not operate in favor of strangers (defendant here) to such a contract. Cannon Ball Motor Freight Lines v. Grasso, 59 S.W.2d 337, affirmed 125 Tex. 154, 81 S.W.2d 482. (b) The Hartford policy is not a printed form, but it is typewritten, and, therefore, the principal reason for applying the rule of strict construction against the insurer is not present in this case. Kempf v. Equitable Life Assn. Soc. of U.S., 184 S.W. 133, reversed on other grounds, 191 S.W. 989; Lemaitre v. National Cas. Co., 195 Mo.App. 599, 186 S.W. 964. (4) The burden of proof was upon defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that assured's loss, by reason of the accident and resulting injury to Walsh, was and is within the terms of the condition or limitation pleaded by defendant as a defense to plaintiff's action. Ritter & Mullaly v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 40; Hoover v. Mercantile Town Mut. Ins. Co., 93 Mo.App. 111, 60 S.W. 42; Bailey v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 166 Mo.App. 593, 149 S.W. 1169; Young v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York, 202 Mo.App. 319, 215 S.W. 496; Walton v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 162 Mo.App. 316, 141 S.W. 1138, 1142; Griffith v. Continental Cas. Co., 290 Mo. 455, 235 S.W. 83; Fetter v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 174 Mo. 256, 73 S.W. 83; Stephens v. Fire Assn. of Philadelphia, 139 Mo.App. 369, 123 S.W. 63; Turner v. National Benev. Soc., 224 Mo.App. 463, 28 S.W.2d 125; Bennett v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co., 230 Mo.App. 939, 80 S.W.2d 914; Johnson v. Central Mut. Ins. Assn., 346 Mo. 818, 143 S.W.2d 257. (5) The policy issued by the American Automobile Insurance Company must be interpreted favorably to the insured, and strictly against the insurer, particularly in regard to the "other insurance" clause, which excludes liability of defendant American Automobile Insurance Company where and if assured carries other insurance insuring against loss arising out of the "loading or unloading" of said truck. (a) This result flows from the general rules construing insurance contracts. Mathews v. Modern Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 326, 139 S.W. 151; Tommitz v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 343 Mo. 321, 121 S.W.2d 745; Schroeder v. Travelers Protective Assn. of America, 138 S.W.2d 699, rehearing denied April 16, 1940, and cases cited there. (b) Exceptions or exemptions and words of limitation are strictly construed against the insurer. Schroeder v. Stock & M. Ins. Co., 46 Mo. 174; American Paper Products Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 208 Mo.App. 87, 225 S.W. 1029, rehearing denied Dec. 30, 1920; Rosen-Reichardt Brokerage Co. v. London Assur. Corp., 214 Mo.App. 672, 264 S.W. 433, rehearing denied Aug. 8, 1924; State ex rel. Mills Lbr. Co. v. Trimble, 327 Mo. 899, 39 S.W.2d 355, rehearing overruled May 21, 1931; Thrower v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee, 141 S.W.2d 192, rehearing denied June 18, 1940. (c) This result is also required by the fact that the exempting clause amounts to a forfeiture and forfeitures must be strictly construed. State ex rel. Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 305 Mo. 607, 267 S.W. 379, rehearing denied Dec. 18, 1924; Mathews v. Modern Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 326, 139 S.W. 151; Renn v. Supreme Lodge, 83 Mo.App. 442; Levine v. Supreme Lodge, 122 Mo.App. 547, 99 S.W. 821; Keeton v. National Union, 178 Mo.App. 301, 165 S.W. 1107, 1109; Johnson v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 166 Mo.App. 261, 148 S.W. 631, affirmed 271 Mo. 562, 197 S.W. 132, certiorari dismissed 249 U.S. 490, 63 L.Ed. 722; Veasman v. Lois Mut. Aid Assn., 214 Mo.App. 552, 262 S.W. 392; Corbin v. Mystic Workers of the World, 226 S.W. 64; Watson v. Commonwealth Life & Acc. Co., 17 S.W.2d 570; 1 Couch, Cyclopedia of Ins. Law (1929), sec. 186.

Moser, Marsalek & Dearing for respondents.

(1) Respondent's policy clearly and unambiguously stipulates against its application to any loss resulting from the loading or unloading of the truck described therein, if the assured carried the policy of another insurer which included directly or indirectly, insurance against any such loss. (a) The policy provision above referred to is not subject to construction and should be enforced as written. State ex rel. Natl. Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 301 Mo. 631, 256 S.W. 737; St. Louis v. Railway Co., 228 Mo. 713, 129 S.W. 699; Turner v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 274 Mo. 260, 202 S.W. 1082; Liggett v. Levy, 233 Mo. 590, 136 S.W. 302; Blanke Bros. Realty Co. v. American Surety Co., 297 Mo. 41, 247 S.W. 801; Wendorff v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 318 Mo. 363, 1 S.W.2d 99; State ex rel. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Shain, 344 Mo. 276, 126 S.W.2d 181; State ex rel. Mutual Benefit Assn. v. Trimble, 334...