Heiser v. Gibson
| Decision Date | 25 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 73-1532. |
| Citation | 386 F. Supp. 901 |
| Parties | Frank J. HEISER, Plaintiff, v. J. T. GIBSON and Guinn Wilkinson, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Gerald A. Bosworth, Michael J. Samanie, Houma, La., for plaintiff.
Jack C. Benjamin, New Orleans, La., for defendants.
Frank Heiser brought this suit against J. T. Gibson and Guinn Wilkinson, executive officers of his employer, for the injuries he claims he sustained when the company truck in which he was riding collided with another vehicle. The theory of liability is novel: these company officials should be held personally liable because they forced the driver of the truck to work so long and so hard that the accident ensued. Gibson and Wilkinson have brought third-party claims against Continental Casualty Company, which insured the company against both manufacturers' and contractors' liability and automobile liability, and against the company's insurance agents, who, the defendants argue, should have obtained coverage against this risk. All parties involved in the third-party demands have moved for summary judgment. Continental denies that it afforded Gibson and Wilkinson coverage under either policy; the executive officers and the insurance agents claim that the Manufacturers' and Contractors' Liability policy (MCL) applies.
The MCL policy specifically excludes "bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of . . . any automobile . . . owned or operated by or rented to the named insured. . . ." There is no doubt that the vehicle involved was a company vehicle. The executive officer defendants argue that the exclusion is inapplicable because the negligence alleged has nothing to do with the "ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading" of an automobile. They urge that the accident "arose," in a legal sense, out of their own alleged negligence as supervisors.
But the theory of liability upon which a plaintiff chooses to base his action is irrelevant to the application of the exclusion by its express terms. The exclusion turns on the source of the injury, not the theory of legal liability. If the injury "arises out of" the use or operation of an automobile, then the exclusionary language forecloses coverage. The language in which this exclusion was drafted is clear; had the companies involved meant to exclude only injuries arising out of negligence in the operation of an automobile, they might have done so with those very words.
With respect to the company's automobile policy, Continental argues that the policy's cross-employee exclusion precludes coverage of this accident. Section II of the policy provides: "None of the following is an insured: (i) any person while engaged in the business of his employer with respect to BODILY INJURY to any fellow employee of such person injured in the course of his employment." Gibson and Wilkinson seek to avoid the application of this exclusion by arguing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucas v. Deville
...public roads . . .". The policy exclusion is clearly applicable and operates to exclude coverage in favor of Deville. Heiser v. Gibson, 386 F.Supp. 901 (E.D.La.1974); Credeur v. Luke, 362 So.2d 1175 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1978) reversed 368 So.2d 1030 (La.1979) 2 and Mauterer v. Associated Indem......
-
Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co. v. Hercules Bldg. & Wrecking Co., Inc.
...coverage in cases where compensation would be available to the injured employee" under workers' compensation laws. Heiser v. Gibson, 386 F.Supp. 901, 903 (E.D.La.1974).11 The record includes the findings and report of the Department of Industrial Accidents and parts of the depositions of Mu......
-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lee
...his wife, the abstaining vote, was.9 Mauterer v. Assoc. Indem. Corporation, 332 So.2d 570, 573 (La.App. 4th Cir.1976), Heiser v. Gibson, 386 F.Supp. 901 (E.D.La.1974), Manuel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 256 La. 480, 236 So.2d 807 (1970).10 In Athas v. Hill, 54 Md.App. 293, 301, 458 A.2......
-
Farmers Fire Ins. Co. v. Kingsbury
...was struck in the eye by a wadded up gum wrapper projected as a "spitball" by another child. In a Louisiana decision, Heiser v. Gibson (1974, E.D.La.) 386 F.Supp. 901, the court expressed the view that the application of the exclusionary language of a homeowners policy turns upon the source......