Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America
| Decision Date | 24 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 31979,31979 |
| Citation | 411 Ill. 325,104 N.E.2d 250 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CANADIAN RADIUM & URANIUM CORP. v. INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA. |
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago (Oswell G. Treadway, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Vogel & Bunge, Chicago, for appellee.
Canadian Radium & Uranium Corporation filed its complaint in the superior court of Cook County, seeking to recover from Indemnity Insurance Company of North America upon a comprehensive general liability insurance policy. Defendant's motion for judgment upon plaintiff's complaint was allowed, and judgment entered for defendant and against plaintiff. The Appellate Court has affirmed, Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 342 Ill.App. 456, 97 N.E.2d 132, and granted a certificate of importance allowing a further appeal to this court.
The material facts, alleged in the complaint, and admitted by defendant's motion, are as follows: Under an agreement made as of June 1, 1944, plaintiff, which had developed and perfected a process for producing radon ointment and had patented certain necessary equipment for use in the process, granted Radium Industries, Inc., a license to produce and distribute the ointment. Plaintiff agreed to deliver to Radium Industries, Inc., a sufficient amount of radium in solution for the production of the ointment, together with an emanator and other necessary equipment and supplies, title to all of which was to remain in plaintiff. The licensee corporation agreed to furnish and maintain suitable space, to supply labor for the production and distribution of the ointment, to invoice purchasers at prices and upon terms determined by plaintiff, and to assume responsibility for collection of the invoices.
On June 20, 1945, Radium Industries, Inc., employed as a laboratory technician, Mary Moore, whose duties required her to operate the emanators and other equipment and devices used in producing radon ointment. She claimed to have sustained bodily injuries as the result of the radioactivity of the radium, its compounds and decay products, and the manner in which she was required to handle them in the production of the ointment. On November 8, 1945, Mary Moore filed a complaint in a United States District Court against the present plaintiff, Canadian Radium & Uranium Corporation, alleging that under its contract with Radium Industries, Inc., the present plaintiff furnished the equipment and materials for the manufacture by the former company of radon ointment; that during a period of approximately seven months, ending on or about June 20, 1945, she was employed by Radium Industries, Inc., working in and about the manufacture of the ointment; that in performing her duties she came in close proximity to radium and radioactive substances, thereby being exposed to the hazard of having her tissues deleteriously affected by the radioactive emanations from these materials; and that in consequence of continued exposure, her hands and other parts of her body were affected by the radioactive emanations and became diseased and afflicted with radium poisoning. Mary Moore alleged that the present plaintiff, the owner of the radium, had, by its negligent and wrongful conduct, caused her to sustain damages and bodily harm in negligently and carelessly failing to warn her of the dangerous character of the radium; negligently and carelessly providing plans and methods of doing the work which involved her undue exposure to the radioactive emanations, and negligently furnishing defective emanators and other equipment which resulted in her exposure to a dangerously excessive amount of radioactive emanations. She also alleged due care on her part, and a lack of knowledge of the risk incident to the handling of radium and radioactive substances. Damages in the amount of $200,000 were asked.
The defendant insurance company had issued to plaintiff its comprehensive general liability policy, under which it agreed to pay on behalf of plaintiff all sums which the latter should become obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon it by law for damages 'because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, * * * sustained by any person or persons and caused by accident,' and to defend in plaintiff's name and behalf any suit against it alleging such injury, sickness of disease, and seeking damages on account thereof 'even if such suit is groundless, false or fraudulent.' The policy provided that 'Upon the occurrence of an accident written notice shall be given * * * to the company as soon as practicable,' the notice to contain 'reasonably obtainable information respecting the time, place and circumstances of the accident, the name and addresses of the injured and of available witnesses.' Bodily injury liability was limited to '$200,000 each accident.' The policy applied to accidents occurring during the period from February 3, 1945, to February 3, 1946.
Upon being advised of the claim of Mary Moore, plaintiff gave defendant insurance company immediate notice thereof, as required by the policy, forwarded to defendant the summons and complaint served upon it, and demanded that the insurer defend the action in the name and on behalf of the insured. The insurance company refused to defend the action, and denied liability, asserting that there was no coverage under the policy because the injury claimed by Mary Moore did not arise out of an accident. The insured thereupon proceeded with its own defense, and shortly before the trial date succeeded in settling Mary Moore's claim for $2500. In the course of its defense it had been obliged to pay out other sums for attorneys' fees, investigations, depositions, physical examinations of Mary Moore, advice and services of scientists trained in handling radioactive substances, and arranging for witnesses to be present at the trial. The expenses, together with the sum paid in settling the suit, totaled $6963.96. The insured thereafter filed the present complaint against the insurance company for breach of the defense provisions of the policy, alleging that the liability asserted and the damages sued for by Mary Moore were for bodily injury, sickness or disease caused by accident and within the coverage of the policy, and that the former action was such as defendant had obligated itself to defend on behalf of the insured. Plaintiff asked judgment for $6963.96, together with interest thereon, its reasonable attorneys' fees as a part of its taxable costs, and in addition thereto, the sum of $500 by reason of vexatious delay, as provided for by statute. Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 73, par. 767.
Defendant's motion for judgment was made upon two grounds: (1) that the claim of Mary Moore involved an occupational disease and was not for bodily injury, sickness or disease caused by accident, within the contemplation of the insurance policy, and (2) that her alleged disability arose out of the handling and use of goods and products sold or handled by plaintiff after it had relinquished possession thereof to Radium Industries, Inc., and that liability on account of such a claim was excluded by a 'Products Exclusion Endorsement' attached to and forming a part of the policy. This endorsement reads: 'It is hereby understood and agreed that the policy to which this endorsement is attached does not cover claims for damages on account of bodily injuries or death resulting therefrom, arising out of the handling or use of or the existence of any condition in goods or products sold or handled by the insured, after the insured has relinquished possession thereof to others, anything contained in the printed conditions of this policy to the contrary notwithstanding.'
The motion was sustained by the trial court without specification as to either ground of the motion. Accordingly, the plaintiff in its appeal to the Appellate Court assigned as error the trial court's acceptance fo both grounds. The Appellate Court, however, sustained the judgment of the trial court solely upon the ground that Mary Moore's disability was not 'caused by accident.' It explicitly stated that consideration of the defense under the 'Products Exclusion Endorsement' was unnecessary. This appeal then followed upon a certificate of importance granted by the Appellate Court.
The first question presented is whether the word 'accident,' as used in the general liability insurance contract, is limited in meaning to a single event referable to a definite time and place; or whether sickness or disease which results from a series of exposures, none of which is sufficient in itself to cause injury, but which when aggregated over a sufficient length of time culminate in a injurious result, may be said to be caused by accident within the meaning of the insurance contract.
This court has considered the meaning of the word 'accident' as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act, Peru Plow & Wheel Co. v. Industrial Comm., 311 Ill. 216, 142 N.E. 546; Labanoski v. Hoyt Metal Co., 292 Ill. 218, 126 N.E. 548; Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 378, 120 N.E. 249. Under the rule developed by these cases, an accident, to be within the Workmen's Compensation Act, 'must be traceable to a definite time, place, and cause'. Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 378, 383, 120 N.E. 249, 251. Although some of the decisions contain language which may be somewhat indicative of a broader application, we are of the opinion that this definition is pertinent only with respect to the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, since it was derived from a construction of the provisions of that act, particularly the provision requiring that notice of the accident be given within thirty days. For example, in the Matthiessen & Hegeler case the court observed: 'The words 'accident' and 'accidental injury' imply, and the provisions for notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michigan Chemical Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co.
...88 Ill.2d at 4, 57 Ill.Dec. 840, 429 N.E.2d 1203; Dora Township, 78 Ill.2d at 379, 36 Ill.Dec. 341, 400 N.E.2d 921; Canadian Radium, 411 Ill. at 332, 104 N.E.2d 250; Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co., 8 Ill.App.3d 172, 175, 289 N.E.2d 464 (1972). Con......
-
Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. v. Truck Tire Sales, Inc., 16 cv 11045
...Ill. App. 3d 1007, 1014, 164 Ill.Dec. 313, 582 N.E.2d 1257, 1263 (1st Dist. 1991) (citing Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indem. Ins. Co. , 411 Ill. 325, 334–35, 104 N.E.2d 250, 255 (Ill. 1952) ; Triple-X Chem. Lab., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. , 54 Ill. App. 3d 676, 679, 12 Ill.Dec. 447,......
-
Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...Ala. 310, 324, 87 So.2d 653, 656-57 (1955), certif. denied, 264 Ala. 696, 87 So.2d 658 (1956); Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 411 Ill. 325, 332, 104 N.E.2d 250, 255 (1952); The Travelers v. Humming Bird Coal Co., 371 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Ky.Ct.App.1963); McGroarty v. Great......
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.
...are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their common and ordinary meaning. See Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, 411 Ill. 325, 104 N.E.2d 250 (1952); Boswell v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 38 N.J.Super. 599, 120 A.2d 250 (1956); Wilkinson & ......
-
CHAPTER 10 ISSUES IN INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES
...involving long-term exposure to injurious conditions. See, e.g., Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 104 N.E.2d 250 (Ill. 1952) (collecting cases); Beryllium Corp. v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 223 F.2d 71 (3rd Cir. 1955); White v. Smith, 440 S.W......