Bruener v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 31302.
Decision Date | 05 October 1950 |
Docket Number | 31302. |
Citation | 37 Wn.2d 181,222 P.2d 833 |
Parties | BRUENER et ux. v. TWIN CITY FIRE INS. CO. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Metzger, Blair, Gardner & Boldt, Tacoma, for appellants.
Harry Ellsworth Foster, Olympia, A. D. Gillies, Aberdeen, for respondent.
On January 20 1949, the plaintiff had an automobile accident on the highway between Elma and McCleary. The pavement was icy, the car skidded, went out of control, left the pavement, straddled the ditch and jammed the front end into an embankment. The car did not turn over.
This action was brought to recover from the defendant insurance company the amount of damage to the car.
The pertinent part of plaintiff's insurance policy reads as follows:
'Coverage A--Comprehensive Loss of or Damage to the Automobile, Except by Collision or Upset.
The trial court, in granting judgment for the plaintiff, said: 'I am unable to intelligently distinguish this case in principle from the decision in 128 Wash. 480.' Ploe v. International Indemnity Co., 128 Wash. 480, 223 P. 327, 328, 35 A.L.R. 999.
The defendant appeals. It contends that the damage was caused by a collision, which is excluded from the coverage of the policy.
In his brief, respondent concisely states the issue and his contention in this case: * * *'(Italics ours.)
It may be conceded at once that the trial court and the respondent correctly construe the Ploe case, supra, that it is in point, and must be overruled if this case is to be reversed.
The policy in the Ploe case, supra, covered 'accidental collision,' but did not cover an upset or skidding. The car skidded, went off the road, collided with a stump, and continued on down an embankment. This court, in holding that there could be no recovery, said: * * *'
The rule of the Ploe case, supra, is that the hazards which are covered and excluded from coverage by the terms of an insurance policy are the proximate causes of accidents, not the accidents themselves. Thus, the policy in that case covered the collision, but not the skidding, its proximate cause, so recovery was denied for the collision.
That rule applied to the present policy, which is comprehensive, and excepts collision, will permit a recovery for every collision which has a proximate cause, and the exception of the policy will only apply where there is no proximate cause for the collision. This collision had a proximate cause--skidding. Therefore, recovery should be allowed under the rule of the Ploe case, supra, unless we overrule it.
In the rare instances where proximate cause has any bearing in contract cases, it has a different meaning than when used in tort. This is pointed out in the case of Pacific Union Club v Commercial Union Assur. Co., 12 Cal.App. 503, 107 P. 728, 730, wherein the policy insured against fire, but not against loss caused directly or indirectly by earthquake. An earthquake destroyed the water mains, making it impossible to put out a fire. The court held that the insurance company was liable, because the earthquake did not start the fire, pointing out the distinction in the application of proximate cause: '* * * The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Findlay v. United Pacific Ins. Co.
...In Graham, we overruled the rule of construction for causation in insurance contracts articulated in Bruener v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 37 Wash.2d 181, 222 P.2d 833, 23 A.L.R.2d 385 (1950), because the Bruener rule would have foreclosed coverage for innumerable Washington citizens affected......
-
Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Hirschmann, 55638-5
..."cause" can have at least two different meanings: (1) "direct, violent, and efficient cause," Bruener v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 37 Wash.2d 181, 185, 222 P.2d 833, 23 A.L.R.2d 385 (1950), and (2) "efficient and predominant" (i.e., proximate) cause, Stoneman v. Wick Constr. Co., 55 Wash.2d ......
-
Salem Group v. Oliver
...purposes of fixing liability, but may go back in the chain of causation until it reaches a broken link. [Bruener v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 37 Wash.2d 181, 222 P.2d 833 (Wash.1950).] [P]roximate cause has a different meaning in insurance cases [from its meaning] in tort cases. In tort case......
-
Graham v. Public Employees Mut. Ins. Co.
...of whether the loss was a direct result of the eruption. The trial court held that the causation analysis of Bruener v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 37 Wash.2d 181, 222 P.2d 833 (1950) precluded the plaintiffs' In Bruener, the insured's vehicle skidded on icy pavement and collided with an emban......