Bartholomew v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 81-1028
| Decision Date | 28 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1028,81-1028 |
| Citation | 655 F.2d 27 |
| Parties | George BARTHOLOMEW et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. APPALACHIAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Edward W. Moses, Providence, R. I., with whom Harry W. Asquith, and Asquith, Wiley & Ryan, Providence, R. I., were on brief, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Peter S. Haydon, Providence, R. I., with whom Kenneth P. Borden, and Higgins Cavanagh & Cooney, Providence, R. I., were on brief, for defendants, appellees.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and BREYER, Circuit Judges.
Robo Wash, Inc., and New England Robo Wash, Inc., the manufacturer and distributor, respectively, collectively hereinafter Robo, supplied certain professional car wash equipment, known as a Spyder unit, to plaintiffs, Bartholomew and another, in 1972. On plaintiffs' facility opening for business it immediately began to suffer difficulties. Parts broke down regularly and proved difficult or impossible to replace, leaving the equipment inoperable for substantial periods of time. Even worse, under the guise of cleaning customers' cars, the Spyder sometimes sprayed them with oil, broke their mirrors and antennas, and folded their license plates. In April, 1973, Bartholomew told Robo that "this Spyder has got to be the most worthless piece of junk that I've ever seen."
Robo sought to remedy the defects, but was unsuccessful; its last attempt occurred prior to plaintiffs' instituting suit against it in February, 1974. By that time, indeed before, plaintiffs had realized the situation was hopeless.
Q. "Would it be a fair statement to say that you and your partner ... came to this realization there was nothing anyone could do prior to the time you filed your original suit in Federal Court?"
A. "That is correct."
In spite of plaintiffs' realization that there was nothing anyone could do "so that the car wash could operate properly," they persisted in using the equipment, following suit, until September, 1974. Thereafter they amended their complaint, seeking damages from Robo until that date, and the parties entered into a consent judgment, Robo admitting damages in plaintiffs' favor in the amount of $300,000. Robo then assigned to plaintiffs its rights against four companies that insured it, the present defendants, appellees, and two others who settled out.
(1) For damages because of injury to or destruction of tangible property including loss of use resulting therefrom caused by an occurrence.
....
" 'Occurrence' means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in personal injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."
This insurance, however, did not take effect until June 1, 1974. Not unnaturally, on learning plaintiffs were claiming that they had assumed the loss, defendants protested that the "occurrence" resulting in Robo's liability had occurred prior to that date.
The facts herein stated having been stipulated, both sides moved for summary judgment. In an extensive opinion, 502 F.Supp. 246, the district court granted defendants' motion. Plaintiffs appeal. Briefly, their contention is that since they continued to suffer damages into the policy period, it was at least a question of fact whether the "occurrence" occurred after the insurance commenced. The district court held that as matter of law it did not. We agree.
Strictly, the act for which a manufacturer is liable is the initial supplying of defective equipment. However, the cause of action is held to arise when the defect takes effect or is discovered. The parties agree to this general principle. Thus, when a plaintiff, some time after having purchased a ladder fell therefrom and was injured, thereby discovering an alleged defect, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hsb Group, Inc. v. Svb Underwriting, Ltd.
...to a loss for which suit has been filed prior to the effective date of the policy. Id. at 147 n. 6 (citing Bartholomew v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 27 (1st Cir.1981)); see also Buckeye Ranch, Inc., 134 Ohio Misc.2d at 23, 839 N.E.2d 94 (holding that the "known loss" doctrine would not ......
-
Michigan Chemical Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co.
...Bartholomew v. Insurance Company of North America, 502 F.Supp. 246, 251 (D.R.I.1980), aff'd sub. nom. Bartholomew v. Appalachian Insurance Co., 655 F.2d 27 (1st Cir.1981); Transport Insurance Co. v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 487 F.Supp. 1325, 1330 (N.D.Tex.1980) (Lloyd's policy language)......
-
Prudential-LMI Com. Insurance v. Superior Court, PRUDENTIAL-LMI
...377 P.2d 889; see also Bartholomew v. Ins. Co. of North America (D.C.R.I., 1980) 502 F.Supp. 246, affd. sub nom. Bartholomew v. Appalachian Ins. Co., supra, 655 F.2d 27 [insurer on risk at time defect is discovered is responsible for loss]; accord, Appalachian Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins......
-
City of Erie, Pa. v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co.
...Appalachian, 676 F.2d at 62. We believed this rule, adopted by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Bartholomew v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 27 (1st Cir.1981), was required in order to prevent parties from insuring themselves for events which had already taken place or were ta......
-
CHAPTER 4
...also Bartholomew v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 502 F. Supp. 246 (D.R.I., 1980), affd. sub nom. Bartholomew v. Appalachian Ins. Co., supra, 655 F.2d 27 [insurer on risk at time defect is discovered is responsible for loss]; accord Appalachian Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 56 (3d C......
-
CHAPTER 8
...public policy to allow insurance coverage on a certainty.”) (internal quotation marks omitted);Bartholomew v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 1981) (describing insurance contracts as a “wager against the occurrence or non-occurrence of a specified event,” such that “the carr......
-
The Y2K bug: will insurance carriers be stung by a swarm of claims?
...Univ. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 271 Cal.Rptr. 528, 533 (Cal.App. 1990). (8.) See, e.g., Bartholomew v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 1981) ("The concept of insurance is that the parties, in effect, wager against the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a specified e......