Froust v. Coating Specialists, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 70-2747,71-302. |
| Parties | Charles W. FROUST v. COATING SPECIALISTS, INC., et al. Charles W. FROUST v. COATING SPECIALISTS, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
John R. Flowers, Harris M. Dulitz of Ungar, Dulitz & Martzell, John R. Martzell, T. A., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
Rudolph R. Schoemann of Schoemann & Ducote, Edward P. Lobman, of Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Snellings & Boisfontaine, John Bolles of Terriberry, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, New Orleans, La., for defendant.
Plaintiff sued his employer, Coating Specialists, Inc., and various insurers of his employer for damages under the Jones Act and the General Maritime Law, alleging that because of negligence of his employer and unseaworthiness of its equipment he contracted silicosis while employed as a sandblaster and spray painter at various times between March, 1959 and April, 1970. He brought a separate action against his employer for maintenance and cure.
The various insurers answered and denied coverage. Coating Specialists, Inc., ("Coating") also answered and filed third-party claims against these insurers. The actions were consolidated for trial.
Prior to trial, all parties stipulated that plaintiff was a seaman, employed by Coating as a sandblaster and spray painter at various times from March, 1959 through April 7, 1970; that he contracted silicosis during the aforesaid period; that it was proximately caused by negligence on the part of Coating and unseaworthiness of its sandblasting equipment; and that plaintiff was entitled to damages in the amount of $175,000, plus certain specified fees and costs, and was due no further payment for maintenance or cure. Judgment was entered on this stipulation, in favor of plaintiff and against Coating, with the question of liability of the defendant insurers reserved for trial by the Court without the intervention of a jury.
Now, after due consideration of the evidence and the arguments and briefs of counsel, the Court finds that plaintiff, Charles W. Froust, is entitled to judgment against defendant Coating Specialists, Inc., and its insurer at the time of manifestation of the silicosis, Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association, Ltd. The Court further finds that defendants Great American Insurance Company, Westchester Fire Insurance Company, North River Insurance Company, Insurance Company of North America, Harbor Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London and Employers' Liability Assurance Company of Boston are entitled to dismissal of the claims against them and, in connection therewith, enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The process of sandblasting calls for the direction of sand under high pressure against a surface to be cleaned. As the sand disintegrates, acting as an abrasive to clean the surface, a cloud of finely fragmented sand called free silica or silicon dioxide is produced. Inhalation of the silica particles into the human lungs can lead to silicosis.
2. Silicosis is a condition that is characterized by nodulation of tissue and development of fibrosis in the lungs.
3. While employed by Coating, plaintiff's duties consisted of sandblasting or spray painting either as a helper, mechanic1 or foreman. His exposure to silica commenced on the first day of his employment on which sandblasting was done and continued throughout his various periods of employment with Coating until he left Coating on April 7, 1970.2
4. Plaintiff's prolonged exposure to silicon dioxide caused and aggravated the silicosis from which he now suffers.
5. During the period April 24, 1969 until April 24, 1970, Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association, Ltd. ("Steamship Mutual") insured Coating under a protection and indemnity policy against legal liabilities such as herein asserted. The other defendant insurance companies ("prior insurers") insured Coating under workmen's compensation and employer's liability policies during various other periods from March, 1959 until April 24, 1969, the date that the coverage afforded by Steamship Mutual became effective.
6. All of the policies of the prior insurers contain (either directly or, in the case of the excess insurers, by incorporation of the terms of the underlying policies) an insuring agreement as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scarborough v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...primary policies into excess policies was considered valid and not in conflict with LSA-R.S. 22:628. See Froust v. Coating Specialists, Inc., 364 F.Supp. 1154, 1155-56 (E.D.La.1973), aff'd per curiam, 494 F.2d 1352 (5th Cir.1974) cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1070, 95 S.Ct. 657, 42 L.Ed.2d 666 (19......
-
Riverwood Intern. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau
...494 (La.App. 4th Cir.1998), Laurendine v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 398 So.2d 1220 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981), and Froust v. Coating Specialists, Inc., 364 F.Supp. 1154 (E.D.La.1973)). With respect to the SIR issue, the court noted that because the claims were "bodily injury by disease" claims, ......
-
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSUR. v. ZURICH AMERICAN INS.
...In INA, the Court held that the controlling factor is the insuring agreements in the various policies. Relying on Froust v. Coating Specialist, 364 F.Supp. 1154 (E.D.La.), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1352 (5th Cir. 1974), defendants maintain that their respective policies exclude coverage. In Froust, s......
-
Grissom v. NLRB, Civ. A. No. 72-288.
... ... Williams, Baton Rouge, La., for Big Three Industries, Inc ... O. Romaine Russell, Baton Rouge, La., for Teamsters ... ...