Central Bearings Co. v. Wolverine Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 02 September 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 53900,53900 |
Citation | 179 N.W.2d 443 |
Parties | CENTRAL BEARINGS CO., Inc., Appellee, v. WOLVERINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Nyemaster Goode, McLaughlin, Emery & O'Brien, Des Moines, for appellant.
Janss, Dreher, Wilson & Adams, Des Moines, for appellee.
Plaintiff corporation sues defendant for breach of insurance policy contract in that it failed to defendant and indemnify it against loss due to a claim and eventual lawsuit brought against it. The action was for damages resulting from the failure of a cable sold by insured in the regular course of its business. Defendant filed answer admitting issuance of the insurance policy to defendant but denying liability. Defendant asserted the policy did not cover the claim and eventual loss by plaintiff. After the issues were joined defendant filed motion for adjudication of law points. The court ruled in favor of plaintiff, held the loss was covered by the policy in question and entered judgment against defendant. Defendant appeals. We reverse.
Part of plaintiff's business includes the sale of steel cable used in operating heavy equipment. Plaintiff sold a 5/8 inch non-rotating cable to a customer. About two months later the cable, while being used on a pile driver, broke and fatally injured Earl W. Kuhnke. Mr. Kuhnke's administrator sued the manufacturer and plaintiff as retailer. The administrator's petition was bottomed on (1) negligence, (res ipsa loquitur); (2) negligence, (specifications); 1 and (3) breach of warranty.
Defense was tendered to insurer and declined. Plaintiff settled the action against it during trial by paying $2125 as its share of the settlement with decedent's estate. Costs of defense were $4073.70. The question of damages is not at issue here.
The insurance contract was in effect at all times material to the accident. The policy was prepared to afford protection against four types of hazards. 2 Only the Premises--Operations Coverage was purchased. There is no question of misrepresentation, misunderstanding or overreaching in connection with the issuance of the policy. The sole question here is: Does the policy as issued cover the risk involved, the loss sustained and the expenses in connection therewith?
I. The rules of construction of insurance policies are well established. The insurance policy is a contract which must be construed as a whole. The words used must be given their ordinary, not technical, meaning to achieve a practical and fair interpretation. Youngwirth v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 258 Iowa 974, 140 N.W.2d 881, 883.
If the words are fairly susceptible to two interpretations the one which will sustain the insured's claim will be accepted. Thus the policy will be strictly construed against the insurer. State Auto. & Cas. Underwriters v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. (Iowa, 1969), 166 N.W.2d 761. This rule is amplified by the statement that the court should ascertain what an insured as a reasonable person would understand the policy to mean, not what the insurer actually intended. Goodsell v. State Auto & Cas. Underwriters, 261 Iowa 135, 153 N.W.2d 458.
Stated otherwise, the climate under which an insurance policy is examined favors imposition of coverage largely because the carrier drew the contract and has the expertise in the field. However, if after construing both the policy in question, the pleadings of the injured party and any other admissible and relevant facts in the record, it appears the claim made is not covered by the indemnity insurance contract issued, the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify. Hagen Supply Corp. v. Iowa National Mutual Ins. Co. (8 Cir. 1964), 331 F.2d 199, 203, 204 and authorities cited therein. If such be the case, the words and phrases of the policy should not be strained to impose liability that was not intended and not purchased.
II. Plaintiff argues that defendant's duty to defend does not in all cases and under all circumstances depend solely on the terms of the policy and the allegations in the petition filed against the insured. We agree.
* * *.' Hagen Supply Corporation v. Iowa National Mutual Ins. Co., supra; Annotation 50 A.L.R.2d 458, 501.
We also agree with plaintiff that in considering the petition of the injured party all facts admissible under the allegations should be considered. In other words, as indicated by Judge Hand in Lee v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (2 Cir., 1949), 178 F.2d 750, 752:
'Whether the insurer ought to defend such an action at least until it appears that the claim is not covered by the policy is not free from doubt; but it seems to us that we should resolve the doubt in favor of the insured. * * *.' Blohm v. Glens Falls Insurance Co. (1962), 231 Or. 410, 373 P.2d 412; 44 Am.Jur., 2d, Insurance, §§ 1540, 1541, pages 422--424.
We therefore assume the injured litigant might have proved its case under either of the three theories pled. Also we assume the charge of failure to warn might have been developed to be a charge of misrepresentation.
III. The problem presented by this case is new to this court. We find two lines of authority in other jurisdictions that are to us irreconcilable. A large number of courts under varying fact situations have imposed liability in analogous cases: Brant v. Citizens Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (1966), 4 Mich.App. 596, 145 N.W.2d 410 ( ); Atkins v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (1967), 7 Mich.App. 414, 151 N.W.2d 846 ( ); Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v. Youghiogheny & O. Coal Co. (8 Cir. 1954), 214 F.2d 418 ( ); Lessak v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. (1958), 168 Ohio St. 153, 151 N.E.2d 730 ( ); St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Coleman (8 Cir. 1963), 316 F.2d 77 ( ); Cf. Eastcoast Equipment Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1966), 207 Pa.Super. 383, 218 A.2d 91 ( ); Reed Roller Bit Co. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. (5 Cir. 1952), 198 F.2d 1 ( ).
There is another large group of cases in which the courts have refused to extend coverage because the loss was not covered by the policy: Hagen Supply Corp. v. Iowa National Mut. Ins. Co. (8 Cir. 1964), 331 F.2d 199 ( ); Blohm v. Glens Falls Ins. Co. (1962), 231 Or. 410, 373 P.2d 412 ( ); Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Roberts (8 Cir. 1942), 132 F.2d 794 ( ); Tidewater Associated Oil Co. v. Northwest Casualty Co. (9 Cir. 1959), 264 F.2d 879 ( ); Service Welding & Machine Co. v. Michigan Mut. Liability Co. (6 Cir. 1962), 311 F.2d 612 ( ); Inductotherm Corp. v. N.J. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. (1964), 83 N.J.Super. 464, 200 A.2d 358 ( ); Smith v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1967), 246 Md. 485, 229 A.2d 120 ( ); Cf. Lee v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (2 Cir. 1940), 178 F.2d 750 ( ). Neither of the above lists of cases is meant to be exhaustive.
In most of the cases imposing liability the original wrongful act is treated as an 'accident' within the meaning of that term as used in the policy. This is illustrated in Brant v. Citizens Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra, relied upon by the trial court in which it is said:
'The fact situation of the instant case is actually composed of two incidents, both of which we regard as 'accidents.' The first 'accident', occurred when the appellants here sold Mr. Hughes the wrong heater according to the complaints in the suits against the Brants. The issue of whether this sale was a question of mistake, negligence or breach of warranty, is not before this court. * * *
* * *.' (loc. cit. 145 N.W.2d at page 412).
The Michigan court reasoned that since the first 'accident' was complete before the stove left the premises, the Products--Completed Coverage exclusion did not apply.
The other line of reasoning treats the initial wrongful act as a pre-existing condition or cause which preceded the accident in question. Under these cases the 'accident' is treated as the unexpected or untoward event which immediately preceded the injury. If this event occurred after the operation was complete the coverage must be found under the Products--Completed Operations clause or not at all. Blohm v. Glens Falls Insurance Co. (1962), 231 Or. 410, 373 P. 412, 416, illustrates this line of reasoning:
'In the case of Bitts v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 282 F.2d 542, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in interpreting a clause defining 'products hazard' which reads identically with the clause in the defendant's policy, stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coulter v. CIGNA Property & Cas. Companies
...insurance contract." Weber, 462 N.W.2d at 285 (quoting McAndrews, 349 N.W.2d at 119, in turn, citing Central Bearings Co. v. Wolverine Ins. Co., 179 N.W.2d 443, 445 (Iowa 1970)). If the totality of facts fail to disclose potential coverage, an insurer might proceed in two ways: it could ini......
-
Wells Dairy v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois
...insurance contract." Weber, 462 N.W.2d at 285 (quoting McAndrews, 349 N.W.2d at 119, in turn, citing Central Bearings Co. v. Wolverine Ins. Co., 179 N.W.2d 443, 445 (Iowa 1970)). If the totality of facts fail to disclose potential coverage, an insurer might proceed in two ways: it could ini......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Terra Industries, C01-4091-MWB.
...misfortune." [Pursell Constr., Inc. v. Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co.], 596 N.W.2d at 70 [(Iowa 1999)] (quoting Central Bearings Co. v. Wolverine Ins. Co., 179 N.W.2d 443, 448 (Iowa 1970)). Norwalk Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 246 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (8th The court notes that cou......
-
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stockdale Agency
...(same standard); Gracey, 518 N.W.2d at 373 (posing same question); Iowa Fuel, 471 N.W.2d at 863 (citing Central Bearings Co. v. Wolverine Ins. Co., 179 N.W.2d 443, 445 (Iowa 1970)); North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Holty, 402 N.W.2d 452, 454 (Iowa 1987) (same standard); Sandbulte, 302 N.W.2d at ......