Dillehay v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 9854,9854 |
| Citation | 91 Idaho 360,421 P.2d 155 |
| Parties | Joseph C. DILLEHAY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Gigray, Boyd & Downen, Caldwell, for appellant.
Brauner, Fuller & Doolittle, Caldwell, for respondent.
Respondent seeks recovery from appellant of property damage to his 1963 Chevrolet two-ton dump truck covered by an insurance policy issued by appellant. Under the policy's coverage relating to 'Collision or Upset,' appellant agreed:
'To pay for direct and accidental loss of or damage to the automobile, hereinafter called loss, caused by collision of the automobile with another object or by upset of the automobile, but only for the amount of each such loss in excess of the deductible amount.'
Respondent's truck was equipped with an ensilage bed of eight-ton capacity, activated for dumping by twin hydraulic pistons located beneath the bed. The pistons were spaced approximately thirty-six inches apart in the center of the truck frame. If the combined weight of the bed and load were evenly distributed between the pistons, the two pistons would be equally extended. The rear wheelbase, the principal support for the truck and its load, was approximately eight feet wide.
On September 12, 1963, respondent's brother, Douglas Dillehay, loaded the truck with wet, newly-cut corn ensilage and transported the load to an ensilage pit owned by one Ethredge Wood. The pit was shaped as a trench, approximately one hundred feet long and eight feet deep at its center point. A truck could be backed into the pit, the ensilage dumped, and then driven forward out of the pit.
Douglas Dillehay, after backing the loaded truck into the ensilage pit, braked the vehicle and unhinged the tailgate. He then raised the truck's ensilage bed as high as possible and started to drive the truck forward. At this critical point the truck's right front wheel dropped into a depression in the floor of the ensilage pit. The altered level of the truck caused the weight of the ensilage remaining in the truck to settle against the right-hand side of the bed. Then, with the weight of the load unequally distributed between the two hydraulic pistons, the right-hand piston became more depressed, as compared to the left, and excessive strain or pressure was placed on the truck frame and the subframe supporting the two pistons. This excessive pressure twisted the hoist and truck frame, which in turn caused a further shift of the ensilage load toward the right-hand side of the bed. The truck then tipped to the right, which caused its left front and rear wheels to be lifted off the ground, and the truck came to rest against the side of the trench, splitting two or three boards in the bed.
The accident comprised a single, uninterrupted process, that is, a continued sequence of cause and effect from the time the right-front wheel dipped, to the moment of contact of the truck with the side of the trench. The driver was helpless to avoid the damages once the front wheel slipped into the depression.
The parties have stipulated the respondent's truck was damaged in the amount of $507.95. Appellant contends that the elements of the loss are separable, i. e., $414.20 damages to the frame and hoist, and $93.75 damages for the boards splintered on impact with the trench.
The trial court found that the entire measure of damages, $507.95, was proximately caused by an overturning process covered by the insurance policy and entered judgment accordingly for respondent. Appellant has appealed, contending that the damages to the truck frame and hoist apparatus preceded the upset and therefore were not proximately caused by the insured perils stated in the 'Collision or Upset' coverage.
Appellant concedes that, by the time the vehicle struck the side of the trench, an upset within the coverage of the policy had occurred. The sole question is whether the upset proximately caused the damages to the truck frame and hoist.
An upset may occur, even though the insured vehicle does not completely overturn. Upset occurs when the vehicle loses its equilibrium. American Liberty Insurance Co. v. Moore, 276 Ala. 634, 165 So.2d 724 (1964); Espree v. Western Pioneer Ins. Co., 159 Cal.App.2d Supp. 875, 324 P.2d 749 (1958); Carl Ingalls, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 137 Cal.App. 741, 31 P.2d 414 (1934); Ferguson v. Farm Bureau Mut. Assur. Co., 171 Kan. 679, 237 P.2d 234 (1951); 11 Couch, Insurance 129 (2d ed. 1963).
In Jack v. Standard Marine Ins. Co., 33 Wash.2d 265, 205 P.2d 351, 8 A.L.R.2d 1426 (1949), an insured diesel caterpillar shovel, having a long crane boom projecting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Argonaut Ins. Co.
...five hundred dollars is a reasonable sum to be allowed respondent Woods as attorney's fees on this appeal. Dillehay v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 91 Idaho 360, 421 P.2d 155 (1966); Farley v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 91 Idaho 37, 415 P.2d 680 (1966); Heath v. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co., 89 Idaho 490, 4......
- Pierce v. Barenberg
-
Mason v. Commercial Union Assur. Companies
...not required, but only a loss of equilibrium of the vehicle beyond the point of recovery by its operator. Dillehay v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 91 Idaho 360, 421 P.2d 155 (1966). Reed v. Commercial Insurance Co., 248 Or. 152, 432 P.2d 691 (1967); Annot. 8 A.L.R.2d 1433 (1949). With this ......