Grayson v. Aetna Insurance Company

Decision Date01 November 1968
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 68-289.
Citation291 F. Supp. 720
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
PartiesRobert GRAYSON, Plaintiff, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

Sol Blatt, Jr., Blatt, Fales & Peeples, Barnwell, S. C., for plaintiff.

R. Bruce Shaw, Columbia, S. C., for defendant.

ORDER

SIMONS, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on motions by plaintiff and defendant for summary judgment on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that each is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The issue involved is the interpretation of a farm owner's liability policy issued to one Grover Hudson by defendant. Plaintiff Robert Grayson was injured while employed in the course and scope of his employment on the farm of the said Grover Hudson and brought suit in the state court against Grover Hudson, his employer, which resulted in a judgment in his favor in the amount of $25,000. Plaintiff contends that the state court judgment is within the coverage of the subject liability policy issued by defendant to his employer and seeks to recover from the defendant in the sum of $25,000. Defendant contends that coverage to plaintiff was excluded by the exclusion in its policy which provides as follows:

"(d) under Coverage G, to bodily injury to any farm employee, arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Insured, and under Coverages G and H, to any person, including any residence employee or insured farm employee, (1) if the Insured has in effect on the date of the occurrence a policy providing workmen's compensation or occupational disease benefits therefor, or (2) if benefits therefor are in whole or in part either payable or required to be provided under any workmen's compensation or occupational disease law; but this subdivision (2) does not apply with respect to Coverage G unless such benefits are payable or required to be provided by the Insured;"

Plaintiff and defendant have stipulated that at the time of plaintiff's injury Grover Hudson, the employer, did not have in effect any insurance coverage providing workmen's compensation or occupational disease benefits nor were such benefits in whole or in part either payable or required to be provided under any workmen's compensation or occupational disease law.

Defendant relying on the first classification in the exclusion contends that plaintiff, being a farm employee when injured was not covered by injuries admittedly arising out of and in the course of his employment by Hudson. Plaintiff contends that such exclusion would only apply if Hudson, plaintiff's employer, on the date of plaintiff's injuries, had in effect a policy of workmen's compensation or occupational disease benefit, or if the benefits from such policy or policies were in whole or in part payable or required to be provided for.

It is of course well settled "that the terms of an insurance policy must be construed most liberally in favor of the insured and where the words of a policy are ambiguous, or they are capable of two reasonable interpretations, that construction will be adopted which is most favorable to the insured." Rhame v. National Grange Mutual Insurance Co., 238 S.C. 539, 121 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1961). It is likewise well settled that "insurers have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Grayson v. Aetna Insurance Company, Civ. A. No. 68-289.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 23 Enero 1970
    ...than at this stage. "Accordingly, both plaintiff's and defendant's motions for summary judgment are denied." Grayson v. Aetna Insurance Company, D.C., 291 F.Supp. 720 (1968). Subsequent to the foregoing order, the case was placed on the trial calendar in the Aiken Division, and was set down......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT