Edwards v. Travelers Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1957 |
| Citation | 5 McCanless 435,201 Tenn. 435,300 S.W.2d 615 |
| Parties | , 201 Tenn. 435 N. C. EDWARDS v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Pierce Winningham, Jr., Jackson, for complainant.
Moss & Benton, Jackson, for defendant.
We granted certiorari, the case has been argued and we now dispose of same.
N. C. Edwards was insured in the Travelers Indemnity Company under a farmer's comprehensive personal liability policy which provided under 'Coverage A'--'Liability' as follows:
'To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom sustained by any person, and as damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss thereof.'
Under the list of exclusions the policy provided under section (f) as follows:
'Under Coverage A, to injury to or destruction of (1) property used by, rented to or in the care, custody or control of the insured, or (2) any goods or products manufactured, sold, handled or distributed by an insured, or work completed by or for an insured, out of which the injury or destruction arises.'
While said policy was in full force and effect the insured made a contract with an independent contractor to do some land clearing for him, using two bulldozers. The insured had no control over the manner in which the work was to be done, nor was he in charge of, or responsible in any way for the care and custody of the bulldozers.
On account of the work being done during the cold weather the contractor would drain the radiator of each bulldozer in the evening, leave it in the field until next morning, and then refill the radiator before starting up the motor. One morning the insured went down early before the arrival of the contractor or any of the latter's employees, and undertook to start one of the bulldozers and to mark out a line along the edge of the field up to which he desired the contractor to do the clearing. Before starting the engine the insured replaced the water in the radiator and closed the draincock on the radiator but failed to close a similar draincock on the motor-block. This allowed the water to drain out, as a result of which, after the bulldozer had been run a few hundred yards, the motor became overheated and severely damaged the motor-block.
As a result of the foregoing, the contractor obtained a judgment in the amount of $1,770.49 against the insured in the General Sessions Court. The Insurance Company assisted in the defense of said suit with a reservation of its right to claim that it was not liable to the insured under the policy. After satisfying said judgment the insured filed its bill in the Chancery Court against the Company and there recovered a judgment against the Insurance Company for the amount of the damages it had paid to the contractor as a result of said judgment in the Sessions Court.
The question here is the same as was made in the Court of Appeals and that is whether or not the insured was using the contractor's bulldozer within the meaning of that term as set out in the policy at the time the damage was done to the bulldozer. The same insistences were made by the respective parties in the Court of Appeals as are now made in seeking an answer to the question of law presented.
The Company contends that the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous and therefore the provision of the exclusion stating, 'this policy does not apply to injury to property used by the insured,' requires no construction by the Court. On the other hand the insured insists that the word used is itself ambiguous so as to require construction of the term and that any doubt involved must be resolved against the Insurance Company and in favor of the complainant.
The Court of Appeals accepted the view of the Insured and affirmed the action of the Chancellor in rendering judgment against the Company.
With deference to the able Chancellor and the Court of Appeals we are of opinion that said Courts were in error in holding that the property was not being used by the insured within the meaning of the terms of the policy and that it was error to render a judgment against the Company.
The argument made in behalf of the insured and the view taken by the Court of Appeals seems to be that since the word use or used has various shades of meaning from the general to the specific, its presence in a sentence necessarily makes an ambiguity. If that were true, it would be almost impossible to write an average sentence that would be free of ambiguity. For instance, take the word 'float.' We commonly think of an object floating on the water, yet it may mean to float in the air, to be unstable, to become detached from its usual mooring, to float a bond issue, to flood an area, and so on. See:--Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed.
The meaning of the word, however, is determined by the context in which it is employed.
The only case which has been cited by counsel containing the identical language of the policy in the instant suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clausen v. Columbia Nat. Ins. Co.
...237, 367 P.2d 127 (1961); International Derrick & Equipment Company v. Buxbaum, 240 F.2d 536 (3d Cir.1957); Edwards v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 201 Tenn. 435, 300 S.W.2d 615 (1957); and Maryland Casualty Co. v. Holmsgaard, 10 Ill.App.2d 1, 133 [1 Neb.App. 814] N.E.2d 910 In Hill v. United S......
-
In re Pyramid Operating Authority, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 91-27959-D
...their reasonable, ordinary meaning and interpretation in the context in which they were used. See Edwards v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 201 Tenn. 435, 300 S.W.2d 615, 617 (1957). In making this determination, the Court recognizes that parties have the right to make their own contract, and tha......
-
PROPERTIES v. RAVENWOOD CLUB INC.
...Court create an ambiguity where none exists in the contract. Cookeville P.C., 884 S.W.2d at 462 (citing Edwards v. Travelers Indem. Co., 201 Tenn. 435, 300 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (1957)). Consideration "A party attempting to prove the existence of a contract 'is required to show that the agreem......
-
Trinity Industries v. Mckinnon Bridge Co.
...Court create an ambiguity where none exists in the contract. Cookeville P.C., 884 S.W.2d at 462 (citing Edwards v. Travelers Indem. Co., 201 Tenn. 435, 300 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (1957)). The language of the indemnification clause is clear and unambiguous. Where the language of a written instru......