Mendelsohn v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1935
• Citation: 290 Mass. 228,195 N.E. 104
• Parties: MENDELSOHN v. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

290 Mass. 228

195 N.E. 104

MENDELSOHN v. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 30, 1935

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Morton, Judge.

Action of contract by Harry B. Mendelsohn against the Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., wherein trial judge ordered a verdict for defendant and reported the case for determination of the Supreme Judicial Court.

Judgment on the verdict.

W. F Neary, of Boston, for plaintiff.

P. E Nourie, of Boston, for defendant.

DONAHUE, Justice.

The defendant issued to the plaintiff a policy of insurance against loss or damage due to certain stated perils on shipments of goods and merchandise while loaded for shipment or in transit on a described automobile truck. The plaintiff sent the truck with a load of unupholstered parlor suite frames from Braintree in this commonwealth to Brooklyn, N.Y. The load was bulky and high and while the truck was on the road to New York the top of the load came in contact with an overhead bridge causing damage to the goods to the extent of $200. No part of the truck itself came in contact with the bridge. The plaintiff seeks to recover under language of the policy which states that he was insured ‘ against loss or damage to such goods by: (c) Collision, i. e., accidental collision of the motor truck with any other automobile, vehicle or object.’

At the trial in the superior court the judge ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover as the motor truck had not come into collision with any other automobile, vehicle or object, directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant and reported the case for the determination of this court.

The plaintiff's right to recover depended upon his proving that his goods were damaged by a ‘ collision,’ as defined in the insurance contract made by the parties. The plaintiff contends that ‘ the load was an integral, component part of the ‘ Motor truck" within the meaning which he thinks should be given to the words of the insurance policy, earlier here quoted. He invokes the rule frequently applied that the language of an insurance policy will be construed most strongly against the insurer who has chosen the language by which the contract of the parties is expressed. This, however, is not a rule of universal application. It may be resorted to only when the words used are ambiguous or the meaning of the language...