Jennings v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 64,64 |
| Citation | 197 N.E.2d 513,47 Ill.App.2d 243 |
| Parties | Walter JENNINGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. F 33. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
M. J. Hanagan, West Frankfort, Ralph W. Harris, Marion, Hanagan & Dousman, Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
August L. Fowler, Marion, for appellee.
Plaintiff filed his complaint against the defendant on a workmen's compensation policy of the defendant issued to Roberson Brothers Lumber Company, hereinafter called 'Roberson' claiming to be a third party beneficiary under the policy. Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff was not an employee of Roberson, the insured, but was an employee of one L. H. Cavender. The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss and plaintiff appeals.
The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, Walter Jennings, was, at the time of his injury and for several months prior thereto, an employee of L. H. Cavender, hereinafter called 'Cavender'. L. H. Cavender, Calvin Cavender, a son and employee of L. H. Cavender, and the plaintiff, an employee of L. H. Cavender, were engaged in logging and lumbering business. The business of Cavender was separate and apart from that of Roberson, except for ordinary business transactions between them. The defendant insured Roberson under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Illinois (Ill.Rev.Stat. Chap. 48, Sec. 138.1 to 138.28 inclusive), and this suit is based on that policy.
The plaintiff first proceeded under the Workmen's Compensation Act against Cavender and Roberson. The arbitrator awarded the plaintiff disability benefits and medical, surgical and hospital benefits totaling $18,793.74. The award was against Cavender. The decision of the arbitrator held that no relationship of employee and employer existed between the plaintiff and Roberson on the day of plaintiff's injury and dismissed Roberson from the case. On review, the decision and award of the arbitrator was upheld by the Industrial Commission of Illinois. The plaintiff did not seek a writ of certiorari, but filed the instant suit against the defendant herein.
The basis of the suit is that the premium of the policy for workmen's compensation coverage issued by the defendant to Roberson, was in part, computed upon the earnings of the employees of Cavender; that Roberson made certain payments to Cavender, his son and the plaintiff for their work in logging and lumbering and that the defendant in computing the amount of premium to be paid for the policy used these payments in such computation. Plaintiff contends that defendant by such computation of the premium, made the plaintiff a third-party beneficiary, and that the plaintiff was covered by the policy and entitled to benefits thereunder. Plaintiff made demand on the defendant for the sum awarded by the decision of the Industrial Commission, and the defendant refused to pay on the ground that its policy to Roberson did not cover the employment of the plaintiff.
The question presented is a legal question only. The plaintiff's case depends upon a single question, namely, did the computation of the premium to be paid to the insurer, based in part, on the earnings of employees of suppliers of lumber to Roberson, extend the coverage of the policy to Cavender and his employees' It is not contended that any part of the plaintiff's wages were directly paid by Roberson. It is not contended that there was any joint ownership or interest between Roberson and Cavender.
The defendant by its policy agreed to pay promptly when due all compensation and other benefits required of the insured by the workmen's compensation law. The employer's liability as defined in the policy was limited to all sums which the insured should become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury by accident or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured. The classification of operations covered by the policy included 'Logging or Lumbering', 'Saw Mills', 'Lumber Yards', 'Truckmen', and 'Clerical Office Employees.' Plaintiff, if found to be under the policy, would be under the 'logging or lumbering' provision.
Both plaintiff and defendant rely upon three Illinois cases, Morris v. Central West Casualty Co., 351 Ill. 40, 183 N.E. 595; Sindelar v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 161 F.2d 712 (Ill.); Dawson v. Maryland casualty Co., 348 Ill.App. 130, 108 N.E.2d 373.
In the Sindelar case, Joseph C. Sindelar was the president of E. W. A. Rowles Company, and while engaged in work for the company, was injured and afterwards died. The Company had a policy with the defendant insurance company, covering workmen's compensation and employers' liability of the company. The premium of the policy was computed on the earnings of the employees including the president. Paragraph V of the policy provided that the policy covered injuries sustained by any person or persons employed by E. W. A. Rowles Company, whose entire remuneration should be included in the total actual remuneration for which remuneration the premium of the policy was computed and adjusted, and included injuries sustained by the president, vice-president, Secretary, and Treasurer, if the insured company was a corporation, whether the work of the corporate officers was in an executive capacity or as employees generally. The case was an Illinois case and the court stated that it was obligated first to look to the decisions of that State for guidance. The court said that while there was no Illinois case directly in point, there was some analogy in the case of Morris v. Central West Casualty Company, 351 Ill. 40, 183 N.E. 595, and discussed that case at some length. The court in the Sindelar case held that the insurance company was bound by the terms of the policy itself, and that the president of the company was insured under the policy.
In the Morris case, Roscoe Morris took out a standard policy of insurance for underwriting risks arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Morris was the employer. Attached to the policy was a rider extending the provisions of the policy to cover Morris in the event he was injured or killed. The premium for the policy was adjusted or computed so as to include the arbitrary sum of $2500.00 for Morris, in the earnings of the employees covered by the policy. In that case, by agreement of the insuring company, and Morris, it was agreed that Morris should be indemnified against injury, or his dependents in case of death, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had been an employee instead of an employer. The parties agreed that the Workmen's Compensation Act should be the standard to determine the defendant insurance company's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Midway Airlines, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 91 B 06449
...(1st Dist.1974); Slavis v. Slavis, 12 Ill.App.3d 467, 474, 299 N.E.2d 413, 418 (1st Dist.1973); Jennings v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 47 Ill.App.2d 243, 249, 197 N.E.2d 513, 517 (5th Dist.1964). 15. Moreover, the Illinois courts, as of the writing of Combined Network, had addressed the iss......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Filos, 1-96-0594
...coverage provided under an insurance policy. Bourne v. Seal, 53 Ill.App.2d 155, 203 N.E.2d 12 (1964); Jennings v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 47 Ill.App.2d 243, 197 N.E.2d 513 (1964); Spence v. Washington National Insurance, 320 Ill.App. 149, 50 N.E.2d 128 (1943); Commonwealth Insurance Co. ......
-
Monarch Gas Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
...conduct, and as a consequence would suffer injury if contrary assertions or denials were allowed." Jennings v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 47 Ill.App.2d 243, 249-50, 197 N.E.2d 513, 517. In this case, Monarch has received, and will continue to receive, the fair rate of return to which it is ......
-
Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's MC v. Safeco Ins.
...City of Chicago v. Nielsen, 38 Ill.App.3d 941, 947, 349 N.E.2d 532, 539 (1976), quoting Jennings v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 47 Ill.App.2d 243, 249, 197 N.E.2d 513, 517 (1964). Windowmaster concedes that Safeco acted to its detriment by allowing payments from the trust fund and by paying ......