Garford Trucking v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia
| Decision Date | 02 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | Docket 22189.,No. 156,156 |
| Citation | 195 F.2d 381 |
| Parties | GARFORD TRUCKING, Inc. v. ALLIANCE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, for appellant, John M. Aherne and John L. Conners, New York City, of counsel.
Mendes & Mount, New York City, for appellee, Charles R. Millett, New York City, of counsel.
Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and L. HAND and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
This is an action on a policy of insurance covering "the legal liability of the Assured as a carrier * * * for loss or damage from perils hereinafter specified to shipments of lawful goods and merchandise * * * in transit in or on" trucks of the Assured between points in the United States or Canada. Federal jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship. Upon the conceded facts each party moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff's motion was granted, D.C., 98 F.Supp. 781, and the defendant has appealed.
The question presented involves the interpretation of the following paragraph of the contract of insurance:
Specifically the question is the applicability of the above-quoted clause "d" to the conceded facts.
The plaintiff, a common carrier by motor vehicle, accepted a turbine for transportation from Trenton, New Jersey, to Boston, Massachusetts, and issued its uniform straight bill of lading to the shipper. The top of the turbine extended above the top of the truck on which it was being carried and during the transportation came into contact with an overhead bridge, spanning a highway near Trenton. No part of the truck struck the bridge nor was the truck damaged in any way, but the turbine sustained damage; and in discharging its legal liability as common carrier the plaintiff was obligated to pay, and paid, the sum of $3,766.
In seeking the meaning of clause 6d our first task is to define the word "conveyance." Some of the modern dictionaries define the word to mean the act of transporting as well as the means by which transportation is effected. But in its context we think "conveyance" is used merely as a synonym for vehicle. If it meant the act of transporting, "collision of vehicle" would be an unnecessary specification, and "overturning" a wholly inappropriate word to inject into the final clause. However, "other accident to the conveyance" (meaning vehicle) must have been intended to add something to "collision" and "overturning." We must ask ourselves whether the phrase in its ordinary meaning would cover a situation in which the load struck a bridge and incidentally no doubt brought the truck to a stop by the force of the contact. The truck driver might well describe what had happened as an "accident" to his truck, though we doubt if he would say that his truck had had a collision. If the force of the contact between the turbine and the bridge had caused injury to the truck, however slight, the case would plainly fall within the phrase "other accident to the vehicle." Cf. Freiberger v. Globe Indemnity Co., 205 App.Div. 116, 199 N.Y.S. 310. Even though the truck sustained no injury whatever, we regard it as extremely unlikely that the parties would have desired to differentiate the two cases had they been foreseen. Why should they? The insurance does not cover injury to the truck but only the carrier's liability for damage to the cargo. That liability is the same whether or not the truck was injured by the force that damaged its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bill Brown Const. Co., Inc. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.
...to "collision of the vehicle" or "collision of the conveyance," to be ambiguous. See, e.g., Garford Trucking, Inc., v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 195 F.2d 381 (2nd Cir.1952), ("vehicle" and "conveyance" used interchangeably); Edgerton v. Minneapolis Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 142 Conn.......
-
Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Simpsonville Wrecker Service, Inc.
...as is often true, there was also a line of cases in which a minority view was adopted. See, e.g., Garford Trucking, Inc. v. Alliance Insurance Co., 195 F.2d 381 (2d Cir.1952); C. & J. Commercial Driveway v. Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation, 258 Mich. 624, 242 N.W. 789 (1932); Gould Morr......
-
Arrow Indus. Carriers, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co. of New Jersey
... ... 228, 195 N.E. 104 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1935); Hamilton Trucking Service, Inc. v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, 39 Wash.2d 688, 237 P.2d ... 789 (Sup.Ct.1932); Bucks County Constr. Co., Inc. v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 162 Pa.Super. 153, 56 A.2d 338 (Super.Ct.1948); ... Co. v. Cameron, 633 P.2d 1212 (Mont.Sup.Ct.1981); and Garford Trucking, Inc. v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, ... 195 F.2d 381 (2 ... ...
-
Brown Mfg. Co. v. Crouse
...624, 242 N.W. 789; Gould Morris Electric Co. v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 229 N.C. 518, 50 S.E.2d 295; Garford Trucking, Inc. v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 2 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 381; Bucks County Construction Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 162 Pa. Super. 153, 56 A.2d 338; ......