Goldsberry Operating Co., Inc. v. Cassity, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 13745,13745 |
| Citation | 367 So.2d 133 |
| Parties | GOLDSBERRY OPERATING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CASSITY, INC., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Bodenheimer, Jones, Klotz & Simmons, Shreveport, for defendant and appellant.
Greene, Ayres & Mayo, Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King, Shreveport, for plaintiff and appellee.
Before BOLIN, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.
Cassity appeals from a judgment rejecting its third party demand against its general liability insurer that the policy of insurance covered its liability for damage done to Goldsberry's oil and gas well by Cassity. We affirm.
Cassity was hired by Goldsberry to perforate ten feet of the well with an explosive Gun at a depth of some 8,000 feet. While the gun was being lowered to the desired depth, it prematurely exploded at 6,900 feet, causing some $10,000 in damages.
The policy excludes coverage for property damage done to "that particular part of any property, not on premises owned by or rented to the insured (Cassity) upon which operations are being performed by . . . . the insured at the time of the property damage . . ." This exclusionary language is of recent origin in the Broad Form Property Damage Coverage used by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, third party defendant here. This form is dated January 1974. The exclusionary language in this form differs from that construed in Hendrix Electric Company, Inc. v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, 297 So.2d 470 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1974). Hendrix recognized the general rule that exclusionary provisions of insurance policies are to be strictly construed.
We are called on to construe the quoted provision to determine whether Cassity was performing its operation solely upon the ten feet Cassity intended to perforate at the 8,000 foot level (as Cassity contends) or whether Cassity was performing its operation upon the tubing (as Aetna contends).
The only case coming to our attention which interprets the policy language in question is from the Supreme Court of Tennessee. 1 There the contractor was hired to install two circuit breakers in an existing electrical switchboard. The contractor negligently shorted the entire board which caught fire and blew up. The court emphasized that the switchboard, although composed of many parts, was nonetheless, a complex, self-contained, collective unit which constituted a single item of property. It held the switchboard to be "that particular part of the property upon which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WE O'NEIL CONST. v. National Union Fire Ins.
...area of the switchboard upon which the insured was contracted to install the circuit breakers. Similarly, in Goldsberry Operating Co., Inc. v. Cassity, 367 So.2d 133 (La.App.1979), the insured was hired to perforate ten feet of a large well, at a depth of 8,000 feet, with an explosive gun. ......
-
Acuity v. Burd & Smith Const., Inc., 20060001.
...Pekin Ins. Co. v. Willett, 301 Ill.App.3d 1034, 235 Ill.Dec. 350, 704 N.E.2d 923, 926-27 (1998); Goldsberry Operating Co., Inc. v. Cassity, Inc., 367 So.2d 133, 134-35 (La.Ct.App.1979); Jet Line Services, Inc. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 404 Mass. 706, 537 N.E.2d 107, 111 (1989); Vinsan......
-
Canal Indem. Co. v. Adair Homes, Inc.
...(S.D.N.Y.1993); Jet Line Svcs., Inc. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 404 Mass. 706, 537 N.E.2d 107 (1989); Goldsberry Operating Co. v. Cassity, Inc., 367 So.2d 133 (La.App.1979);Vinsant Elec. Contractors v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 530 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn.1975). The ongoing operations exclusi......
-
Jet Line Services, Inc. v. American Employers Ins. Co.
...the insured was retained to work, courts have held that the exclusion applies to the entire property. See Goldsberry Operating Co. v. Cassity, Inc., 367 So.2d 133, 135 (La.App.1979) (damage to extensive portion of well tubing on only ten-foot portion of which insured was hired to work not c......