EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY A. CORP. v. Youghiogheny & O. Coal Co.
Decision Date | 07 July 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 14989.,14989. |
Parties | EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSUR. CORP., Limited v. YOUGHIOGHENY & OHIO COAL CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Reginald Ames, St. Paul, Minn. (Cummins, Cummins, Hammond & Ames, St. Paul, Minn., on the brief), for appellant.
Mandt Torrison, St. Paul, Minn. (Bundlie, Kelley, Finley & Maun, St. Paul, Minn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This is an action upon a liability insurance policy to recover damages alleged to be within the coverage of the policy. The defense is that the accident causing the damages involved was not covered by the policy because it was excluded by Exclusions (a) and (d) thereof, and that there was no duty resting on the appellant to defend the action brought against the plaintiff to recover such damages.
Jurisdiction of the Federal Court is based upon diversity of citizenship of the parties and the amount involved.
The plaintiff, Youghiogheny and Ohio Coal Company, hereinafter referred to as the Coal Company, is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business at the city of Cleveland. It is authorized to do business in the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. The defendant-appellant is a corporation organized under the laws of Great Britain. The insurance policy involved was issued in Ohio and is, therefore, an Ohio contract, and it must be construed by the laws of that state. American Law Institute, Restatement of Conflict of Laws, § 346; Matusek Academy of Music, Inc., v. National Surety Corporation, 7 Cir., 210 F.2d 333. And the Ohio courts hold that a contract of insurance is made in the state where the last act is done which is necessary to complete the contract and bind the insured and the insurer. Equitable Life Ins. Co. of Iowa v. Gerwick, 50 Ohio App. 277, 197 N.E. 923, 926.
The alleged negligence occurred in Wisconsin and, insofar as the law of torts is involved, the law of the place where the tort occurred is controlling. Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Mather, D.C. Cir., 210 F.2d 868, 872.
The insurance company on December 31, 1948, made and delivered to the plaintiff coal company its Manufacturers' and Contractors' Liability policy covering the coal company's premises and operations at Superior, Wisconsin, as a coal, fuel, oil or wood dealer for a period of one year. So far as material here the insurance company agreed:
In August, 1949, while the policy was in effect, the coal company at its premises in Superior, Wisconsin, accepted, prepared for loading and then loaded with coal a Pere Marquette freight car. The court found that the preparation for and the loading operation were all acts necessary and incidental to the use of the insured premises as a place for conducting its business as a coal dealer.
After the car was loaded it was delivered to the Great Northern Railway Company, and on the 29th of August, 1949, the loaded car was "spotted" on a siding at Princeton, Minnesota; and one Burnett, an employee of the consignee of the car, attempted to open one of the sliding doors of the car, and while he was attempting to do so, "the door of the car left its moorings and crashed down upon him injuring him severely."
Thereafter, in August, 1950, Burnett brought an action in the state court of Minnesota against the Great Northern Railway Company, the Pere Marquette Railway Company, the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, and the coal company for personal injuries so received by him in the sum of $110,000, claiming that his injuries were the proximate result of the negligence of the defendants. The particular acts of negligence attributed to the coal company in Burnett's complaint were:
The coal company promptly tendered the defense of the action to the insurance company. The defense was declined on the ground that Burnett's injuries were not covered by the policy because the accident alleged in his complaint was covered by Exclusions (a) and (d) thereof, supra. Attorneys for the coal company accordingly undertook its defense. During the course of the trial, upon advice of counsel, the case was settled for $45,000, of which amount the coal company contributed the sum of $7,500. The coal company incurred an expense in the defense of that action in the amount of $4,825.57, making its total expense the sum of $12,325.57, for recovery of which this action was brought. The defendant here conceded in the trial court that its liability would have been covered by the policy except for the two exclusionary clauses (a) and (d) thereof.
On this appeal the insurer contends that the court erred in finding and entering judgment for the coal company for two reasons only:
1. The accident to Burnett was not covered by the policy because of Exclusions (a) and (d); and
2. There was no duty resting on appellant to defend the action brought by Burnett against the coal company; and, therefore, it is not liable to reimburse the plaintiff coal company for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the trial of the Burnett case.
The second contention may be disposed of briefly. We, therefore, consider it first.
To support its refusal to defend the Burnett suit the appellant relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Minnesota in Lyman Lumber & Coal Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 206 Minn. 494, 289 N.W. 40. We need not decide whether the cited case is consistent with the decision of that court in Butler Bros. v. American Fidelity Co., 120 Minn. 157, 139 N.W. 355, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 609, because on this point the law of Ohio is controlling since the policy here is an Ohio contract. Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Wells, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 224. The precise question presented here was decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Bloom-Rosenblum-Kline Co. v. Union Indemnity Co., 121 Ohio St. 220, 167 N.E. 884, 886. In the cited case an automobile liability policy was involved. The suit against the insured was an action for damages caused by an automobile neither owned by the insured nor covered by the policy; but the provision of the policy was the same as that in the present case. The insured gave notice to the insurer of the commencement of the suit, and the insurer refused to defend. The insured defended, won the case, and sued the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods Exploration & Pro. Co. v. Aluminum Co. of Amer.
... ... of America, Crown Central Petroleum Corp. and Lavaca Pipeline Co.; Vinson, Elkins, Searls & Connally, Houston, ... of Labor to prescribe higher minimum wages for companies selling coal to the TVA on longterm contracts. This effort at persuasion would seem to ... ...
-
Shields v. Hiram C. Gardner, Inc.
...factor for deciding when and where the 'occurrence or accident' takes place. Those cases are: Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co., 214 F.2d 418 (8th Cir. 1954); Karpe v. Great Am. Indem. Co., 190 Cal.App.2d 226, 11 Cal.Rptr. 908 (1961); Kendrick v. Mason, 234 La. 2......
-
Kansas City Insulation Co. v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...was held inapplicable since the insured's repair work on an oil burner was not completed. In Employer's Liability Assur. Corp. v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co., 214 F.2d 418 (8 Cir., 1954), applying Ohio law as to the insurance contract, this Court held that a products-hazard exclusion did n......
-
Cobbins v. General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp.
...to an insured like Fingerhut. See McGinnis v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Supra; Employers Liability A. Corp. v. Youghiogheny & O. Coal Co., 214 F.2d 418 (8 Cir. 1954); Lessak v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York, 168 Ohio St. 153, 151 N.E.2d 730; and compare Eastcoast......
-
CHAPTER 10 ISSUES IN INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES
...of any judgment or settlement at least up to the policy limits. See, Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Youghiogheni & Ohio Coal Co., 214 F.2d 418 (8th Cir. 1954). Under Illinois law, an insurer who breaches its duty to defend may be estopped to deny coverage. See, Consolidated Rail Co......