Maryland Cas. Co. v. City of Taunton

• Decision Date: 17 March 1936
• Citation: 200 N.E. 775,294 Mass. 69
• Parties: MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. CITY OF TAUNTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

294 Mass. 69

200 N.E. 775

MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.

v.CITY OF TAUNTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 17, 1936.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Brogna, Judge.

Action of contract by the Maryland Casualty Company against the City of Taunton, which was tried without a jury. Finding for the plaintiff in the sum of $759.01, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained, and entry of judgment upon finding ordered with addition required by opinion.

H. B. White, of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. E. Welch, City Sol., of Taunton, for defendant.

LUMMUS, Justice.

This is an action of contract to recover a balance of $1,109.83 for insurance premiums not finally determined in advance but dependent upon the amount of payrolls during the terms of the policies. The judge found for the plaintiff in the sum of $698.48 and interest. The plaintiff brings the case here on exceptions, and contends that it is entitled to recover two items for which the judge denied recovery.

The disputed items relate to a ‘public liability’ policy and a ‘standard workmen's compensation and employers' liability’ policy, both for the year ending October 3, 1932, issued to ‘City of Taunton-Sewer Department.’ That department divided its employees doing sewer work into a sewer construction force and a sewer maintenance and cleaning force. Only the payroll of the former force was discovered and considered when the premiums were computed and paid. The plaintiff now seeks to recover an additional premium based upon the compensation paid to the latter force.

The ‘schedule-operations: kind or kinds of work covered by policy,’ in the case of the public liability policy, and the ‘classification of operations' in the case of the workmen's compensation policy, read as follows: ‘All work done by employees of the Sewer Department rated as: sewer construction-all operations-excluding tunneling except at street crossings, No. 6301.’ The figures No. 6301 referred to a class, established by the plaintiff, for rating purposes in computing premiums, consisting of sewer construction employees. Sewer cleaning employees formed a different class, with a different number and a different rate.

The workmen's compensation policy provides that ‘the premium is based upon the entire remuneration earned, during the policy period, by all employees of this employer engaged in the business operations described in said declarations together with all operations necessary,...