Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., No. 357.

Docket NºNo. 357.
Citation199 A. 252
Case DateMay 03, 1938
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont
199 A. 252

HALL
v.
CRYSTAL LAKE ICE CO. et al.

No. 357.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Chittenden.

May 3, 1938.


199 A. 253

Appeal from Commissioner of Industries.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by William B. Hall, claimant, against the Crystal Lake Ice Company, employer, and the American Fidelity Company, insurance carrier. From an award by the Commissioner of Industries, ordering payment of compensation by the employer, but discharging the insurance carrier, the claimant appeals.

Order discharging insurance carrier vacated, and judgment rendered against it.

Lee E. Emerson, of Barton, for appellant. Clarence R. White, of Burlington, for appellee American Fidelity Co.

Argued before POWERS, C. T" and SLACK, MOULTON, SHERBURNE, and BUTTLES, JJ.

MOULTON, Justice.

This is an appeal by the claimant from an award by the commissioner of industries, ordering the payment of compensation by the employer, but discharging the insurance carrier. No question is made concerning the nature of the injury, the extent of the disability, or the amount of compensation; the only point is whether the policy issued by the insurance carrier covered the operation during which the accident occurred.

There is no dispute as to the facts. The insured, Joseph E. Hendy, was engaged in the business of harvesting, storing, and retailing natural ice, at Barton, Vt, under the name of the Crystal Lake Ice Company. He was insured under a workmen's compensation and employer's liability policy, issued by the American Fidelity Company, by which the insurer agreed "to pay promptly any person entitled thereto, under the Workmen's Compensation Law, P.L. 6480 et seq., and in the manner therein provided, the entire amount of any sum due, and all installments thereof as they become due," and "to indemnify this Employer against loss by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages on account of such injuries to such of said employees as are legally employed wherever such injuries may be sustained within the territorial limits of the United States of America." Other material provisions of the policy are as follows:

"This Agreement Shall Apply to such injuries so sustained by reason of the business operation described in said Declarations which, for the purpose of this insurance, shall include all operations necessary, incident or appurtenant thereto, or connected therewith, whether such operations are conducted at the work places defined and described in said Declarations or elsewhere in connection with, or relation to, such work places. * * *

"The statements in items 1 to 6 inclusive, in the Declarations hereinafter contained, are true. This policy is issued upon such statements and in consideration of the provisions of the Policy respecting its premium and the payment of the premium in such Declaration expressed. Declarations * * * 3. Locations of all factories, shops, yards, buildings, premises or other work places of this Employer, by Town or City, with Street and Number. Barton, Vermont. * * * 5. This Employer is conducting no other business operations at this or any other location not herein disclosed, except as herein stated: No Exceptions."

The claimant, William B. Hall, was employed by the Crystal Lake Ice Company as a mechanic, in the repair and operation of the machinery used in connection with the filling of the icehouse. His employment began in December, 1936. It was and had been, since 1925 or 1926, the practice of the Crystal Lake Ice Company to "swap work" with the Gill. Brook Ice Company, of Colchester, Vt.—that is to say, the proprietor of the latter business would come to Barton for a week or two in the autumn or spring of each year and assist in the harvesting of ice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Michaels v. State of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 96-3557 (MTB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1997
    ...accidents which occurred while the employee was working for the second employer." Id. (citing Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., 109 Vt. 416, 199 A. 252 6. Although the County relied on Cashen and Coleman in its moving brief, it conceded at oral argument that it would not have brought this motio......
  • Mercier v. Holmes, No. 482
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 2, 1956
    ...is without merit. The testimony was clearly material, not for the special reasons existing in Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., 109 Vt. 416, 199 A. 252,--for that case concerned policy terms and coverage that are not involved here,--but because it helped to bring out the relation and situation ......
  • Wilkins v. Blanchard-mcdonald Lumber Co., No. 1212.
    • United States
    • May 6, 1947
    ...50, 55, 113 A. 818; Chamberlain v. Central Vermont R. Co., 100 Vt. 284, 287, 137 A. 326; Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., 109 Vt. 416, 420, 199 A. 252. In this respect they have the same force as a special verdict of a jury. Town of Grand Isle v. Kinney, 70 Vt. 381, 389, 41 A. 130; Harris v. H......
  • American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Boston v. Tuscaloosa Veneer Co., 6 Div. 371.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1939
    ...to coverage and the adjustment of premiums. Wingen v. Fleischman et als., 252 N.Y. 114, 169 N.E. 108; Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., Vt., 199 A. 252. The evidence is without dispute that prior to the issuance of the policy the plaintiffs had engaged in the saw mill business at Moundville, Ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Michaels v. State of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 96-3557 (MTB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1997
    ...which occurred while the employee was working for the second employer." Id. (citing Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., 109 Vt. 416, 199 A. 252 6. Although the County relied on Cashen and Coleman in its moving brief, it conceded at oral argument that it would not have brought this motion if ......
  • Wilkins v. Blanchard-mcdonald Lumber Co., No. 1212.
    • United States
    • May 6, 1947
    ...50, 55, 113 A. 818; Chamberlain v. Central Vermont R. Co., 100 Vt. 284, 287, 137 A. 326; Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., 109 Vt. 416, 420, 199 A. 252. In this respect they have the same force as a special verdict of a jury. Town of Grand Isle v. Kinney, 70 Vt. 381, 389, 41 A. 130; Harris v. H......
  • Mercier v. Holmes, No. 482
    • United States
    • October 2, 1956
    ...is without merit. The testimony was clearly material, not for the special reasons existing in Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., 109 Vt. 416, 199 A. 252,--for that case concerned policy terms and coverage that are not involved here,--but because it helped to bring out the relation and situation ......
  • Dunne v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • February 24, 1976
    ...held to include accidents which occurred while the employee was working for the second employer. Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co., 109 Vt. 416, 199 A. 252 (1938). A policy which provided coverage for drivers 'wherever engaged' was held to be effective when a truck driver was injured while worki......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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