Grayson v. Aetna Insurance Company, Civ. A. No. 68-289.
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | R. Bruce Shaw, Columbia, S. C., for defendant |
| Citation | 291 F. Supp. 720 |
| Parties | Robert GRAYSON, Plaintiff, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 68-289. |
291 F. Supp. 720
Robert GRAYSON, Plaintiff,
v.
AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 68-289.
United States District Court D. South Carolina, Aiken Division.
November 1, 1968.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grayson v. Aetna Insurance Company, Civ. A. No. 68-289.
..."Accordingly, both plaintiff's and defendant's motions for summary judgment are denied." Grayson v. Aetna Insurance Company, D.C., 291 F.Supp. 720 Subsequent to the foregoing order, the case was placed on the trial calendar in the Aiken Division, and was set down for trial at the next non-j......
-
Grayson v. Aetna Insurance Company, Civ. A. No. 68-289.
..."Accordingly, both plaintiff's and defendant's motions for summary judgment are denied." Grayson v. Aetna Insurance Company, D.C., 291 F.Supp. 720 Subsequent to the foregoing order, the case was placed on the trial calendar in the Aiken Division, and was set down for trial at the next non-j......