Independent Milk & Cream Co. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 30 June 1923 |
Docket Number | 5208. |
Parties | INDEPENDENT MILK & CREAM CO. v. ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Commissioner's Opinion.
Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; Wm. L. Carroll Judge.
Action by the Independent Milk & Cream Company against the Ætna Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Frank & Gaines and W. S. Rynerson, all of Butte, for appellant.
J. A Poore and W. D. Kyle, both of Butte, for respondent.
This action was instituted to recover on an indemnity insurance policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on December 8, 1919, by the terms of which the defendant company agreed subject to certain conditions, to indemnify the assured against loss or expense resulting from claims for personal injuries suffered or alleged to have been suffered by others than its employés by reason of the use of a certain automobile or motor truck described in the policy. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict returned for the plaintiff upon which judgment was duly entered and this appeal is from the judgment, the defendant's motion for a new trial having been denied.
The policy involved herein contains, among others, the following stipulations:
During the life of the policy one John Ouimet was seriously injured by the automobile truck of respondent and thereafter, through his guardian, instituted suit to recover $30,000 damages, in which action it was alleged that Ouimet was an employé of respondent at the time of the injury complained of, which was denied in respondent's answer. In compliance with the terms and conditions of the policy the appellant was duly notified of the suit and the summons and complaint were promptly delivered to it, whereupon appellant refused to assume any responsibility and declined to defend the action upon the alleged ground that Ouimet was an employé of respondent company. Upon the refusal of appellant to defend the action, the respondent interposed an answer and after issue joined, upon advice of counsel, compromised the claim for the sum of $3,000 and consented that judgment be rendered against it for said sum, which amount was paid by respondent to Ouimet, and after payment of the judgment the present action was instituted following appellant's refusal to reimburse respondent for the amount, with costs, together with $200 expended for counsel fees.
The two principal questions submitted on this appeal for determination are: (1) Whether Ouimet was or was not an employé of respondent at the time of the accident; and (2) we are required to construe the policy provision designated clause J, requiring respondent's liability to be determined by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial