Corral v. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Ltd., Civil 3287
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Writing for the Court | ROSS, C. J. |
Citation | 42 Ariz. 213,23 P.2d 934 |
Parties | JOSEPHINE CORRAL, Administratrix of the Estate of TIBURCIO LOPEZ, Deceased, Appellant, v. OCEAN ACCIDENT AND GUARANTEE CORPORATION, LIMITED, a Corporation, Appellee |
Docket Number | Civil 3287 |
Decision Date | 12 July 1933 |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. Dave W. Ling, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. R N. Campbell, Mr. J. Fred Hoover and Mr. Peter T. Robinson for Appellant.
Mr. C H. Young and Mr. Paul J. Feehan, for Appellee.
In the month of July or August, 1926, one Andrew Senum contracted with the Southern Pacific Hotel and Investment Company to construct a three-story concrete hotel at Yuma, Arizona. The nature and character of the work clearly subjected the employer and employees to the rules, regulations and requirements of the Workmen's Compensation Law but recently passed. Chapter 83, Laws of 1925, p. 345. One of such requirements was that the employer should, before engaging in any construction of the kind named, obtain workmen's compensation insurance. This Senum did with the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Limited, to which we shall hereafter refer as the company. The material part of such contract of insurance reads as follows:
The premium on such policy was figured upon the entire remuneration earned during the life of the policy by all of the employees engaged in the construction of said building.
One Tiburcio Lopez, an employee on the building, on or about September 7th, 1926, was accidentally electrocuted by coming in contact with a live wire. No claim for compensation by his widow or dependents was ever filed with the Industrial Commission, but instead his administratrix, Josephine Corral, as his personal representative, brought an action against Lopez' employer, Senum, for the benefit of his surviving widow and a posthumous child, under the employer's liability act, and recovered judgment therein in the sum of $12,500 and costs taxed at $145.55, which judgment was permitted to become final.
The present action was brought by the administratrix to recover from the company as insurance carrier the amount of said judgment. She contends that paragraph 1 (b) of the policy authorizes such a recovery. The court dismissed the action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter, and the administratrix has appealed.
From the foregoing statement it is seen that the questions to be decided are: (1) The right or power of the administratrix of Lopez' estate to avoid the compensation law by electing to sue for damages under the employers' liability act; and (2) her right to collect any judgment obtained against the employer from the insurance carrier.
The Workmen's Compensation Law, considerably condensed, consolidated and revised, is carried forward into the Revised Code of 1928 as article 5 of chapter 24 (section 1391 et seq.). But as the facts of this action arose prior to such revision our references shall be to the original act, chapter 83, supra.
The purpose of the compensation act, as has been repeatedly stated, is, as much as possible, to dispense with turmoil, contention, and litigation between employer and employee, and to place upon business the burden of caring for employees injured, or, when killed, their dependents. Our compensation law is replete with this thought. Its administration is confided to three men, appointed by the Governor, known as the Industrial Commission. There is created a state compensation fund for the purpose of insuring employers against liability for compensation and of assuring the employees their compensation.
Section 48 provides that all employers, except the state and its legal subdivisions, shall secure compensation to their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ream v. Wendt, 2
...into the clear language of the pertinent statutes insofar as employers are concerned. In Corral v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, 42 Ariz. 213, 23 P.2d 934 (1933), our Supreme Court held that the failure to post notices as required by the Act and/or to have blank rejection forms av......
-
Mardian Const. Co. v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 1
...531 P.2d 144 (1975); Citizen's Utility, Inc. v. Livingston, 21 Ariz.App. 48, 515 P.2d 345 (1973); Corral v. Ocean Guarantee Corp., Ltd., 42 Ariz. 213, 23 P.2d 934 (1933) (all holding that A.R.S. § 23-906(A) is designed to afford employers who comply with the worker's compensation act immuni......
-
Industrial Commission of Ariz. v. J. & J. Const. Co., 5440
...See Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 32 Ariz. 275, 257 P. 644; Corral v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., Ltd., 42 Ariz. 213, 23 P.2d 934; Red Rover Copper Co. v. Industrial Comm., 58 Ariz. 203, 118 P.2d 1102, 137 A.L.R. 740; O'Neill v. Martori, 69 Ariz. 270, 212 P.2d ......
-
Galloway v. Vanderpool, CV-02-0269-PR.
...action in the court of appeals. The court accepted jurisdiction and granted relief, relying on Corral v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., 42 Ariz. 213, 23 P.2d 934 (1933), and Jackson v. Northland Constr. Co., 111 Ariz. 387, 531 P.2d 144 (1975). Galloway v. Vanderpool, No. 2 CA-SA XXXX-XXX......