General American Transp. Corp. v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., 16614.
| Citation | 369 F.2d 906 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 16614.,16614. |
| Parties | GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORP., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
John M. Aherne, New York City (Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant. Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, Donald F. Connors, Julian S. Gravely, Jr., New York City, Alvin O. Moore, Chattanooga, Tenn., of counsel.
James M. Goff, Chicago, Ill. (Boult, Hunt, Cummings & Conners, Nashville, Tenn., Sonnenschein, Levinson, Carlin, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellee. Joseph G. Cummings, Port Huron, Mich., Bernard J. Nussbaum, Errol L. Stone, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Before PHILLIPS, CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment under an all risk policy of property insurance. The litigation grew out of a construction project at the Arnold Engineering Development Center, a federally owned establishment at Tullahoma, Coffee County, Tennessee. Jurisdiction being based upon diversity of citizenship, Tennesse law is controlling.
The project involved the erection of a unique structure, an underground silo, as a part of a propulsion engine altitude test facility. During the time that fresh concrete was being poured to erect the cap of the structure, a temporary shoring platform collapsed under the weight of the concrete. The entire temporary steel falsework and all the fresh concrete fell some 250 feet to the bottom of the silo, bringing death to four workmen and causing vast property damage.
District Judge Charles G. Neese, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment against the insurance carrier for property damage in favor of appellee, a sub-contractor on the project. Reference is made to the opinion of the district judge, 239 F.Supp. 844 (E.D.Tenn.), for a more complete statement of facts.
After hearing extensive evidence, the district judge found that the damages resulted from a combination or concurrence of proximate causes, including negligent welding by appellee's workmen "in prefabrication of the highly-stressed top flange of the insert at a truss, designated as truss #3, which apparently failed and permitted an increased deflection of that truss, which in turn resulted in local or general buckling of the bottom chord involved and a transfer of the resulting overloading to adjacent trusses; that, thereupon, the entire falsework system failed almost simultaneously." 239 F.Supp. at 845.
This finding of fact, which is supported by substantial evidence, is not "clearly erroneous," and therefore will not be set aside by this court on appeal. Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The insurance policy insured appellee against "all risks of physical loss of or damage to * * * property from any cause * * * except as hereinafter excluded." Expressly excluded was "loss or damage due to * * * inherent vice or latent defect. * * *"
Appellant contends: (a) that the damage was the direct result of faulty design...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chadwick v. Fire Ins. Exchange
...978, 992; General American Transp. Corp. v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (E.D.Tenn.1965) 239 F.Supp. 844, 846, affd. per curiam (6th Cir.1966) 369 F.2d 906; General Motors Corp. v. The Olancho (S.D.N.Y.1953) 115 F.Supp. 107, 118, affd. per curiam (2d Cir.1955) 220 F.2d 278.) Employing a narro......
-
City of Burlington v. Hartford Steam Boiler
...insuring against negligence in welding, defective welding is not a `latent defect'.") (citing Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd., 369 F.2d 906, 908 (6th Cir.1966) (per curiam)); but cf. Plaza Equities Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 372 F.Supp. 1325, 1331 (S.D.N.Y. Despite its ......
-
Standard Structural Steel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
...at 261-62. See also General American Transportation Corp. v. Sun Ins. Offices, Ltd., 239 F.Supp. 844, 846 (E.D.Tenn.1965); aff'd 369 F.2d 906 (6th Cir.1966); Avis, supra, 195 S.E.2d at 547-49 for examples of fortuitousness being used interchangeably or in close connection with external or e......
-
Fallick v. Kehr
... ... Fallick according to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. In January 1965, Fallick ... the same court in Personal Industrial Loan Corp. v. Forgay, 240 F.2d 18 (10th Cir. 1956), cert ... included in their partnership agreement a general provision "that should any controversy arise ... Ltd. v. Garnac Grain Co., 356 F.2d 189, 193 (2d Cir ... ...
-
The Y2K bug: will insurance carriers be stung by a swarm of claims?
...1996); Chadwick v. Fire Ins. Exch., 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 871, 875 (Cal.App. 1993). (60.) Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Sun Ins. Office Ltd., 369 F.2d 906 (6th Cir. (61.) See Employers Cas. Co. v. Holm, 393 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Civ.App. 1965). (62.) G. COUCH, COUCH ON INSURANCE 2d [subsections] 42:416, 42:......