Connie's Const. Co., Inc. v. Continental Western Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--56445,2--56445 |
| Citation | 227 N.W.2d 204 |
| Parties | CONNIE'S CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., d/b/a Connie's Construction Co., and d/b/a Steel Erector's Inc., Appellee, v. CONTINENTAL WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Patterson, Lorentzen, Duffield, Timmons, Irish & Becker, Des Moines, for appellant.
Lawyer, Lawyer, Dunn & Jackson, Des Moines, for appellee.
Submitted to REYNOLDSON, Acting C.J., and MASON, LeGRAND, REES, and McCORMICK, JJ.
This appeal involves a question of coverage under a contractor's equipment policy. Plaintiff connie's Construction Co., Inc., brought this action against its insurer, defendant Continental Western Insurance Company, alleging coverage of damage to an insured truck crane. The trial court found the loss was covered and entered judgment for plaintiff against defendant of $8797.17. Defendant contends the court erred in finding coverage. We affirm the trial court.
The crane was damaged on December 28, 1970, while being used to lift steel decking during construction of a garage for the state highway commission in West Des Moines. The crane cable broke, causing the boom and its load to fall onto the building. This action involves only the damage to the crane. The boom and cable had to be replaced, and various repairs to the equipment were necessary.
The damage to the building resulted in a separate claim under a liability policy with a different insurer. See Connie's Construction Co., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 227 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1975), filed separately this date. Principles applicable to our review are summarized in that case and will not be repeated here.
Defendant's appeal raises two issues: whether the damage to the crane occurred from an external cause as required by the policy, and whether an exclusion of loss from mechanical breakdown or latent defect is applicable.
The only evidence bearing upon the cause of the accident was introduced by plaintiff. The evidence showed that raising the boom was accomplished by operating the crane to wind cable on a hoist drum. Plaintiff's employees had installed a longer cable on the crane than the spool of the drum had capacity to hold. As the boom was raised toward its maximum elevation to lift the steel decking to the top of the building, the spool became full. As the drum continued to turn, the excess cable slipped off the side of the spool, caught in gears on the crane, and was severed.
The trial court found the cause of the accident was the act of placing too much cable on the crane. Since this finding is supported by substantial evidence, we are bound by it.
I. Paragraph 4 of the policy provides for coverage of '(a)ll risks of direct physical loss of or damage to the insured property from any external cause, except as hereinafter provided'. Defendant contends the cause of the loss in this case was the breaking of the cable and argues this was not an 'external cause' within the meaning of the policy.
Defendant relies on Hawkeye-Security Insurance Company v. Iori Bros., 106 So.2d 916 (Fla.App.1958), for support of its position. That case involved a coverage dispute under an equipment policy like the one in this case. We find the case is authority for plaintiff's position. In that case a dragline operator blacked out after engaging the dragline hoist lever. The boom moved beyond the vertical position and then collapsed, falling upon the cab of the dragline and damaging it. The court ruled the employee's inability to act and not the collapse of the boom was the cause of the damage. The court held this was an external cause within the meaning of the dragline owner's equipment policy.
In doing so the Florida court cited and quoted from Dubuque Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Caylor, 249 F.2d 162 (10 Cir. 1957). That case is even closer to the present case. The same policy language was involved. There an employee mistakenly poured anti-freeze into the crankcases of several machines thinking it was lubricating oil. When subsequently operated, several of the machines overheated and seized. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seattle Tunnel Partners v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC, Co.
...The Court of Appeals supports this conclusion by citing to cases from other states. See Connie's Constr. Co. v. Cont'l W. Ins. Co. , 227 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1975) (holding that a mechanical breakdown is a functional defect in machinery and that an MBE did not exclude coverage because in t......
-
Seattle Tunnel Partners v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC
...recovery for internal causes, and applicable law appears consistent with their position. See, e.g., Connie's Constr. Co. v. Cont'l W. Ins. Co., 227 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1975) (holding that a mechanical breakdown is a functional defect in machinery, and that an MBE did not exclude coverage ......
-
Standard Structural Steel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
...Investors Fire & Casualty Company v. Preddy, 248 Ark. 320, 451 S.W.2d 457 (1970). See also Connie's Construction Co., Inc. v. Continental Western Ins. Co., 227 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1975). The Court has found the cause of the damage here to have nothing to do with "functional defects in the......
-
St. Mary's Area Water v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
...v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co., 670 F.Supp. 189, 192 (W.D.La.1987), aff'd, 857 F.2d 286 (5th Cir.1988); and Connie's Constr. Co. v. Conn W. Ins. Co., 227 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1975). As stated in Preddy: "We interpret a mechanical breakdown here to have reference to a failure in the working ......