Folger Coffee Co. v. Great American Insurance Co.
Decision Date | 12 August 1971 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 18466-3. |
Citation | 333 F. Supp. 1272 |
Parties | The FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff, v. The GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
William H. Sanders, Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Paul H. Niewald, Gordon, Adams, Niewald & Risjord, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ON ISSUE OF LIABILITY
This is an action on a contract of insurance under the diversity statute, § 1332, Title 28, United States Code.1 Plaintiff's complaint is in two counts. In the first count, it is alleged that $120,448.97 worth of plaintiff's property which was in the possession of defendant's insured Ar-Ka-Mo Sporting Goods, Inc., was, on or about the 26th day of June 1969, while insured's policy with defendant was in force "was totally destroyed or damaged by risks insured against by said policy, and said destruction or damage did not happen from any of the causes excepted in said policy"; that plaintiff "performed all the conditions of said insurance on its part, and on the 7th day of January, 1970, made and delivered to the defendant a claim and demand under said policy which was then and still is due and payable, however, defendant refused and still refuses to consider or pay said claim." Count two alleges destruction of property possessed by the insured on July 7, 1969. A sum of $117,498.56 is demanded in that count. A third count demands damages for vexatious refusal to pay.
At a pretrial conference held herein on February 5, 1971, it was agreed by the parties that certain issues relating to the construction of the contract of insurance would be submitted to the Court prior to any determination of whether any trial on the potential issue of negligence of defendant's insured was necessary. A "pretrial order" filed herein on February 24, 1971, reports the agreement made by the parties on February 5, 1971. That order reads as follows:
The following facts, pertinent to the issue under consideration, have been admitted by the parties:
According to the true copy of the insurance policy attached to the complaint herein, the following is the clause which is relied upon by plaintiff as bringing its losses within the coverage of the policy:
"III. Property covered
The policy covers:
A. Personal property usual to the conduct of the Insured's business, consisting principally of Premiums for Prizes, the property of the Insured, or similar property of others held by the insured for which the insured is liable, except as provided elsewhere in this policy." (Emphasis added.)
Defendant relies on the emphasized language, contending that the word "liable" in the provision means "legally liable" and that plaintiff must therefore show the negligence of the bailee Ar-Ka-Mo Sporting Goods, Inc., before it can recover under the policy.
In cases like that at bar, however, the courts have almost uniformly held that if, from the contract construed in its entirety, the fair interpretation and construction of the insurance contract is that it was intended primarily to cover the property held by the insured, then "liable," as used within the policy, does not refer to any fixed legal liability of the insured to respond in damages, but should be construed more broadly to mean "responsible." This view is well developed in the leading cases of Penn v. Commercial Union Fire Ins. Co., 233 Miss. 178, 101 So.2d 535, 67 A.L.R.2d 1238, and United States v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. (N.D.Tex.) 104 F. Supp. 632, affirmed (C.A.5) 202 F.2d 696. See also Michigan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. National Sur. Corp. (C.A.8) 156 F.2d 329.2 Penn v. Commercial Union Fire Ins. Co., supra, expresses the prevailing rule precisely that the insurance covers property in possession of the bailee for which he is responsible, and does not cover the legal liability of the bailee to respond in damages. See also Anno., 67 A.L.R.2d 1241 at pages 1254 and 1255, subparagraph (c); 4 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 2345, p. 341, note 53.75. Missouri law is applicable in this case. From all materials available, including Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, it is concluded that the Missouri courts would follow the prevailing view and construe the word "liable" in the policy in the case at bar to be synonymous with "responsible." See definitions in 136 S.W. 2d at page 298.
In the Globe & Rutgers case, supra, the Government sued the defendant insurance companies for the loss of certain cotton seed which was destroyed by fire at the premises of the McCoy Gin Company, Inc., on November 18, 1949. The policies sued upon all contained the following provision, concerning the property insured:
"On cotton, ginned and unginned, baled and unbaled, seed cotton, cotton seed, supplies of sacks and other packaging material containing or to contain cotton seed, and bagging and ties, their own, and provided the insured is legally liable therefor, this policy shall also cover such property sold but not delivered, held in trust, or on consignment or for storage."
The Government sued for the loss of cotton seed which it had contracted to buy under price support programs and which was destroyed by fire. In holding that the Government could recover without any showing of negligence on the part of the McCoy Gin Company, Inc., the Court stated as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paktank Louisiana, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc.
...insured to respond in damages, but should be construed more broadly to mean "responsible." Folger Coffee Company, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 333 F.Supp. 1272, 1274 (W.D.Mo.1971). Without question, the Underwriters policy provides insurance on property and does not cover the l......
-
Highlands Ins. Co. v. City of Galveston By and Through Its Bd. of Trustees of Galveston Wharves
...the cause remanded with instructions that the court enter judgment in accordance with this opinion. 1 Folger Coffee Co. v. Great American Insurance Co., 333 F.Supp. 1272 (W.D.Mo.1971); United States v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 104 F.Supp. 632 (N.D.Tex.1952), aff'd, 202 F.2d 696 (5th C......
-
Arbor Acres Farm, Inc. v. Gre Insurance Group, No. CIV. S-01-2030 WBS/JFM (E.D. Cal. 1/23/2002)
...& Rutgers Fires Insurance Co., 104 F. Supp. 632 (N.D.Tex. 1952), aff'd 202 F.2d 696 (5th Cir. 1953); Folger Coffee Co. v. Great American Insurance Co., 333 F. Supp. 1272 (W.D. Miss. 1971); C.S. Rouse v. Albany Ins. Co., 257 N.C. 267 (1962); Penn v. Commercial Union Fire Insurance Co., 233 M......
-
House of Lloyd, Inc. v. Versa Corp.
...Federal's coverage for Lloyd's loss of the conveyor subsystems, the district court relied on Folger Coffee Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 333 F.Supp. 1272 (W.D.Mo.1971) (Folger Coffee ) (where bailee's insurance policy provided "the policy covers ... property of others held by the insured for w......