Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. McKinney
Decision Date | 25 February 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 3272.,3272. |
Citation | 114 S.W.2d 338 |
Parties | COMMERCIAL STANDARD INS. CO. v. McKINNEY. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Nacogdoches County; C. E. Brazil, Judge.
Action upon the contractor's and manufacturer's public liability policy by R. W. McKinney against the Commercial Standard Insurance Company. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $4,700.22, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price, of Dallas, for appellant.
Seale & Thompson, of Nacogdoches, for appellee.
On the 12th day of November, 1934, appellee, R. W. McKinney, under a contract with the State Highway Department, was doing construction work on Highway No. 21 in Nacogdoches county, "scarifying" the road on a section three or four thousand feet long. His division extended west out of the city of Nacogdoches. The scarifier was being operated on the road, drawn by a caterpillar tractor; and, on that day, the tractor and scarifier had made several trips up and down the road. At the close of the day as the operators of the scarifier and tractor were preparing to park their two machines for the night, they were run into by a passenger bus, traveling west out of Nacogdoches; at the time and place of the accident the two machines were on the north side, the "wrong side," of the road without lights or any other danger sign to warn the public. Seven persons, traveling in the bus as passengers, were injured in the collision, and filed separate suits in the district court of Nacogdoches county against appellee for the damages suffered by them in the collision; the grounds of negligence alleged against appellee were predicated upon the operation by him of his tractor and scarifier on a public road. In adjusting these claims appellee paid the claimants $3,735.07.
At the time of the collision between the bus and appellee's tractor, he had a Contractors' and Manufacturers' Public Liability Policy with appellant, Commercial Standard Insurance Company, insuring him against claims for injuries to persons, or death of persons, resulting from his operations as a road contractor. The policy excepted the following risks from its coverage:
When demand was made upon appellee by the persons injured in the collision, he referred their claims to appellant; appellant denied liability under its policy. After the denial of liability, the claimants filed their suits against appellee and he furnished appellant with copies of these petitions, but it continued in its denial of liability, and refused to investigate the claims and to defend these suits. Thereupon, as stated above, appellee settled with the claimants and made demand upon appellant under his policy for reimbursement; when this demand was refused he filed this suit, praying for judgment for the amount paid out by him, and for an additional sum as attorney's fees. Appellant answered by demurrers, general and special, by general denial, and by special plea of section 2 to the coverage of the policy. The jury found that: (a) At the time of the accident the road immediately east of the place of the accident "was in a torn up condition"; (b) "that situation" was the proximate cause of the accident; (c) appellee "exercised ordinary care in settling the claims"; (d) the expenditure made by him in adjusting the claims was reasonable; and (e) the attorney's fees paid, and contracted to be paid, by him were reasonable. In entering judgment, the court made the following independent finding: "The Court finds as a matter of law from the evidence that the tractor, as being used at the time and place in question and in the manner in which it was being used, was not a vehicle as contemplated by the parties in the exceptions to coverage in the policy in question." On these findings judgment was entered in favor of appellee and against appellant for the sum of $4,700.22.
Appellee, in his testimony, gave the following description of his tractor and its use:
Opinion.This was a public road accident. Appellee's contract with the Highway Commission required him to do the work covered by his policy of insurance on a public road. Under the contract, his principal use of the tractor was on a public road. By this we mean to say that appellee contracted to do highway construction work, knowing that he would have to operate his machines on the highways. So, it must be concluded that the parties intended that appellee should obey the highway laws, and should operate his machines within the provisions of these laws, and that his machines should be "defined" as defined by these laws. We quote these definitions:
Article 6675a-1 of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas:
Article 6687a, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.:
Article 827b of Vernon's Ann.Penal Code of Texas provides as follows: "The following words and phrases when used in this Act shall for the purpose of this Act have the meanings respectfully ascribed to them in this Section as follows:
Under these statutory definitions, the tractor was a "vehicle." The following authorities give application to definitions of "vehicles" as used in Highway Laws, taken from 3 Words and Phrases:
(a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Central Sur. & Ins. Corp. v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co.
... ... v. Case, 97 P ... 165; Davis v. Natl. Casualty Co., 142 Tex. 29, 175 ... S.W.2d 957; Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v ... McKinney, 114 S.W.2d 338; Wendorff v. Mo. State Life ... Ins. Co., 318 ... ...
-
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Hilderbrandt
...Tex.Com.App., 34 S.W.2d 815; Texas Indemnity Insurance Co. v. McLelland, Tex. Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1101; Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. McKinney, Tex. Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 338; Brodek v. Indemnity Insurance Co., 292 Ill.App. 363, 11 N.E.2d 228; Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Washi......
-
Wilson v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...581; Isaacson Iron Works v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, Ltd., 191 Wash. 221, 70 P.2d 1026; Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. McKinney, Tex.Civ. App., 114 S.W.2d 338; United Waste Mfg. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 85 Misc. 539, 148 N.Y.S. The judgment is reversed and here ent......
-
Davis v. National Casualty Co.
...in this case and the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Ninth Supreme Judicial District in Commercial Standard Insurance Company v. McKinney, 114 S.W.2d 338, 339. In that case the policy of insurance on which the suit was brought exempted the insurer from liability for injuries ......