F. D. Chapman Const. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 43958
| Decision Date | 19 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 43958,43958 |
| Citation | 297 Minn. 406,211 N.W.2d 871 |
| Parties | F. D. CHAPMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., et al., Appellants, v. GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Thomson, Lovett, Wahlfors & Moran and James L. Wahlfors, Minneapolis, for appellants.
Robb, Van Eps & Gilmore, and John H. Lewis, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and ROGOSHESKE, PETERSON, and GILLESPIE, JJ.
Plaintiffs, construction companies insured by defendant insurance company, appeal from a judgment adverse to their claims for expenses incurred in the successful defense of prior actions against them, brought by businessmen of Forest Lake, which defendant refused to defend. Summary judgment in this action was granted on the grounds that the claim of the businessmen in the prior actions was not one covered under the terms of the comprehensive general liability policies issued by defendant to plaintiffs. No determination has yet been made as to the reasonableness of the expenses incurred by plaintiffs in the defense of the prior actions.
The prior actions arose out of plaintiffs' construction of a sewer line for the village of Forest Lake. The construction, which encountered considerable delay due to unusual rainfall, resulted in the obstruction of access to the business establishments of the plaintiffs in the prior actions. The complaint in one action, representative of those in three others, alleged:
'In causing, permitting, allowing and suffering said obstruction and impassable conditions, the defendants, and each of them, were careless, willfully negligent, maintained a public and private nuisance and unlawfully and without just compensation deprived the plaintiff of his property and the use, profits and enjoyment thereof.'
Defendant insurance company, by the terms of the policy, undertook:
'* * * (T)o pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay and (sic) damages because of injury to or destruction of real or tangible personal property during the policy period, including the loss of use thereof resulting from an occurrence.
'* * * With respect to such insurance as is afforded by this policy, the company shall:
(a) defend any suit against the insured alleging such injury, sickness, disease or destruction and seeking damages on account thereof, even if such suit is groundless, false or fraudulent; * * *.'
The word 'occurrence,' used in the above quoted policy language, is defined therein to mean:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Bartlett
...defend, reserving its right to contest coverage based on facts developed at trial on the merits. See, F. D. Chapman Const. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 297 Minn. 406, 211 N.W.2d 871 (1973). The insurer contends that there was no 'occurrence' and therefore a condition precedent to its duty t......
-
Lanoue v. Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Companies
...of the complaint. Further, the insurer has the burden of showing that no duty to defend exists. In F. D. Chapman Const. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 297 Minn. 406, 211 N.W.2d 871 (1973), several businessmen sued a construction company for negligently obstructing access to their businesses d......
-
Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Pierz v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...defend, reserving its right to contest coverage based on facts developed at trial on the merits. See, F. D. Chapman Const. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 297 Minn. 406, 211 N.W.2d 871 (1973).' Thus while the insurer must as a rule defend any suit which alleges a claim within coverage, if the ......
-
Prahm v. Rupp Const. Co.
...at trial to establish the facts necessary to determine the coverage question. To the extent that F. D. Chapman Const. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 297 Minn. 406, 211 N.W.2d 871 (1973), and Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Bartlett, supra, hold that the insurer should defend its insured while re......