Matson v. Travellers' Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1900
• Citation: 45 A. 518,93 Me. 469
• Parties: MATSON v. TRAVELLERS' INS. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

45 A. 518

93 Me. 469

MATSON

v. TRAVELLERS' INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 4, 1900.

(Official.)

Agreed statement from supreme Judicial court, Knox county.

Action by Charles Matson against the Travellers' Insurance Company. Submitted on agreed statement. Plaintiff nonsuited.

This was an action of assumpsit brought upon an accident insurance policy issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sustained a double fracture of his right arm by reason of an alleged accident to him at the time and place mentioned in the declaration, which he claimed was occasioned by an accident, within the meaning of law and the policy by which he was insured. The defendant company claimed that the facts did not disclose any cause of action against the defendant. The parties stipulated that if, under the agreed statement, the defendant was liable, the action should stand for the assessment of damages; otherwise, the plaintiff was to become nonsuit. The following is the agreed statement of facts: "The policy makes a part of the case. At the time and place of the injury the plaintiff was at work 'in a motion' by himself, in a hole or excavation in the ledge about two feet below the surface of the ledge about him, when Daniel Story, who was working at another place, in another 'motion,' came along on the ledge above where the plaintiff was standing, and began to talk to the plaintiff in an angry manner, accusing the plaintiff of blasting too heavily near his house (Story's), claiming that the rocks flew from Matson's blast into his 'motion,' and also struck Story's house, and Story told Matson to stop it; that he would kill his wife (Story's), children, or himself. Matson's reply was, 'Get out of here; you have no business here.' This maddened Story, who then picked up a stick or club of wood, which was lying near by, drew off, and struck at Matson's head with it; and Matson, to ward off the coming blow and save his head, threw up his right arm, and received the blow on the right side thereof, breaking it, as described in the declaration. Matson had made no attempt to strike or assault Story, or to use any violence whatever. The assault by Story upon Matson was intentional."

The case involved the construction and application of one clause in the policy, which provides that the insurance does not cover "intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or any other person, except burglars or robbers"; the only question being whether the injury which caused the accident for which recovery is sought was intentionally inflicted by "any other person."

Argued before PETERS. C. J., and HASKELL, WISWELL, STROUT, SAVAGE, and FOGLER, JJ.

W. R. Prescott, for plaintiff.

C. E. & A. S. Littlefield, for defendant.

WISWELL, J. The plaintiff was the holder of an accident insurance policy issued by the defendant corporation, which entitled him to receive, if disabled by bodily injuries sustained...