INSURANCE CO. OF NO. AMER. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 28 February 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 35071. |
Citation | 371 F. Supp. 550 |
Parties | INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff, v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
G. Cameron Buchanan, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Harold F. Klute, Niles, Mich., for defendant.
Facts
This action is for Declaratory Judgment brought by Insurance Company of North America (I.N.A.) against Northwestern National Insurance Company (Northwestern) which arose as a result of the destruction of a certain crane owned by L. W. Connelly & Sons, Inc. (Connelly). Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
At the time of the loss to the crane, both I.N.A. and Northwestern had liability policies in effect insuring Precast Schokbeton, Inc. (Precast), a firm now known as Cork Street, Inc. Precast had secured the services of the Connelly crane for use at a construction project in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The suit was instituted for Declaratory Judgment to construe the two policies and to determine the liability of each party under the contracts for the damage to the Connelly crane.
The case is now before the Court by agreement of the parties for decision on the basis of pleadings, briefs, stipulation of facts and two depositions. Set out below is the stipulation of facts.
Before proceeding with a discussion of the evidence presented in the two depositions, I.N.A.'s objection to consideration of further evidence should be noted. I.N.A. takes the position that the parties had agreed that the Court will make its decision on the basis of this statement of facts without further evidence. Northwestern, conversely, argues that the stipulation was not intended to be and clearly is not fully dispositive of the factual issues in the case. While still asserting its objection to further evidence, I.N.A. has agreed to participate in the depositions of two Precast employees, William F. Daily, the person in charge of erecting the columns and pillars, and Robert A. Matthews, president of Precast.
To resolve this question, the Court must bear in mind the duty it is asked to perform — namely, determine liability for this loss. The issue of liability in this case turns on an interpretation of the contractual relationship between Precast and Connelly. The facts presented in the stipulation, however, relate few details of this relationship. Essentially the stipulation is limited to stating that Connelly furnished a crane with operator to Precast under a verbal agreement for a fee of $40 per hour.
The Court, therefore, concludes that the stipulation by itself presents insufficient facts for the Court to decide this controversy and will consider the aforementioned depositional evidence. Additionally, due process considerations would require any waiver of rights by Northwestern to be explicit.
Precast had a standing verbal agreement with Connelly under which Connelly would furnish cranes at a predetermined hourly rate, depending upon the size of the crane ordered. Accordingly, whenever Precast needed a crane in the Detroit area, Connelly was informed that a crane of a certain capacity was needed. Connelly would deliver a crane to the construction site with a two man crew consisting of an operator and oiler.
Since the boom was unassembled when delivered to the site, Precast Ironworkers, whose union had jurisdiction for boom assembly, assembled the boom under the direction of the operator. The operator and oiler were Connelly employees with their wages, employment taxes, and workmen's compensation insurance paid by Connelly.
In the instant case, Connelly was engaged to provide a crane needed by Precast to lift 20 ton concrete columns and singles into place for the East Medical Center Parking Structure at the University of Michigan under a subcontract from Jeffress-Dyer, Inc. Precast, being responsible for the erection project, directed the emplacement procedure and determined the order in which the columns were to be erected. Although acting under the general supervision of Precast, the crane operator was responsible for deciding how each lift was to be made and for controlling all the instruments and levers in the crane necessary to make a lift. In this respect, Connelly, by its employees, retained physical control over the equipment at all times.
At the end of each work day, Precast would execute a document, designated "Rental Contract" and supplied by Connelly, to record the number of hours the crane had been in use that day. Before leaving the site, the operator would secure the crane for the night.
Under the terms of the Precast-Connelly agreement, Connelly was entirely responsible for service and maintenance on the crane. Additionally, Connelly had the right to furnish any crane adequate to perform the job. The agreement further gave Connelly the right to substitute cranes at projects in progress or to remove a crane from the construction site at night or on weekends to perform other jobs. Finally, each party had the right to terminate the arrangement at will.
It is important to note at the outset that only the rights and liabilities of I. N.A. and Northwestern, vis-a-vis each other, can be determined in this Declaratory Judgment action.2 The Court does not, and indeed cannot, here make binding conclusions with respect to other parties. Specifically, no determination is made as to any ultimate liability of either I.N.A. or Northwestern to the insured arising from this loss to the Connelly crane.
Two insurance contracts providing liability coverage to Precast have been submitted to the Court for interpretation and construction. The I.N.A. policy is a general liability contract covering any liability which the insured might incur...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Canal Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
...S.C. 363, 163 S.E. 837 (1932); 13 Couch, Cyclopedia of Ins. Law, § 45:999 (2d ed. 1965); cf., Insurance Co. of North America v. Northwestern National Insurance Co., 371 F.Supp. 550 (E.D.Mich.1973), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1192 (6 Cir. Liberty maintains that the truck was never in any way, nor under......
-
Crane Service & Equipment Corp. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
...from an affidavit of the president of Crane, who apparently made the affidavit with a copy of Insurance Co. of N. America v. Northwestern Natl. Ins. Co., 371 F.Supp. 550 (E.D.Mich.1973), aff'd., 494 F.2d 1192 (6th Cir.1974), at his elbow. Those facts are as follows: Crane supplied a Model T......
-
Dubay v. Trans-America Ins. Co., TRANS-AMERICA
...remained in the possession and physical control of plaintiffs and their employees at all times (see Insurance Co. of North Amer. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., D.C., 371 F.Supp. 550, affd. 6 Cir., 494 F.2d Thus, despite the characterization by plaintiff Eugene Dubay, the crane was not "leas......
-
Western Cas. & Sur. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 80-1174
...must themselves be considered in the light of the stipulated facts. In the case of Insurance Co. of North America v. Northwestern National Insurance Co., 371 F.Supp. 550, 554 n.5 (E.D.Mich.1973), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1192 (6th Cir. 1974), a federal district court considered the same argument adv......