City of Burlington v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 35-75,35-75 |
| Citation | 340 A.2d 89,133 Vt. 423 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF BURLINGTON v. GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Joseph E. McNeil, Burlington, for plaintiff.
Paul, Frank & Collins, Burlington, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, KEYSER, DALEY and LARROW, JJ.
Edward Dugan was injured by a fall into a partially uncovered manhole located within the street right-of-way at the northeast corner of Champlain Street and King Street in Burlington and subsequently filed a complaint against the city. By declaratory judgment action, plaintiff City of Burlington asked the Chittenden Superior Court to determine that the provisions of its comprehensive liability policy with defendant Glens Falls Insurance Company required the insurer to cover and defend the city against Dugan's personal injury claim.
Defendant refused to defend the city, pointing to an exclusion endorsement in the city's comprehensive general liability policy which provided:
Such insurance . . . for bodily injury liability and property damage liability does not apply to an occurrence arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of highways, roads, streets and sidewalks.
The city argued successfully below that the alleged negligently maintained catch basin is not an appurtenance of the street, but is instead part of the storm drainage system. Concluding that the design and maintenance of the catch basin were not performed in maintaining the highway, the lower court judged that Dugan's cause of action did not fall within the exclusionary policy provision and ordered defendant to defend and respond within policy limits to any judgment against the insured. The insurance company appeals here.
The issue before us is a narrow one: whether or not a catch basin and grate lying within a city street is part of that street, thus executing the policy exclusion. We conclude that the catch basin and grate are part of the street and therefore that the lower court improperly ruled the exclusion inapplicable.
In reversing the judgment, we are aware of the general rule that since the purpose of this type of insurance contract is to provide protection against liability claims, policy terms must therefore be given interpretation consistent with that purpose, with limitations and exclusions strictly construed. American Fidelity Co. v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Co., 124 Vt. 271, 274, 204 A.2d 110 (1964). But to conclude, as did the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrisville Water & Light Dept. v. USF&G, CO.
...defend, must show that a third party's claim against the insured is entirely excluded from coverage. City of Burlington v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 133 Vt. 423, 424, 340 A.2d 89, 90 (1975). In the present case, Fidelity has not met its burden, because the CGL and Indemnity policies clearly pro......
-
Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...burden is on the insurer to show that the claims against it are entirely excluded from coverage. See City of Burlington v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 133 Vt. 423, 424, 340 A.2d 89, 89 (1975)(finding that exclusionary clauses must be strictly construed). In addition, an insurance policy must be i......
-
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Davenport
...must show that a third party's claim against the insured is entirely excluded from coverage.”) (citing City of Burlington v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 133 Vt. 423, 340 A.2d 89, 90 (1975)). An exclusionary clause must be strictly construed against the insurer as its drafter. Petty, 923 F.Supp. a......
-
Integrated Techs., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.
...Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 166 Vt. 452, 461, 697 A.2d 667, 673 (1997) ; see also City of Burlington v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 133 Vt. 423, 424, 340 A.2d 89, 90 (1975) (recognizing that "policy terms must ... be given interpretation consistent with" purpose of policy). The purpose o......