Monteleone v. American Emp. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 43763,43763 |
| Citation | 120 So.2d 70,239 La. 773 |
| Parties | Andrew MONTELEONE v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
James A. Comiskey, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Gerald J. Gallinghouse, William A. Glennon, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant.
This is a suit on a 'money and securities' insurance policy for recovery of $2,160 which was stolen from plaintiff's home in a burglary occurring on February 6, 1956. Plaintiff additionally prays for penalties and attorney's fees provided by R.S. 22:658.
Plaintiff owns and operates a supermarket at 4100 Canal Street in the city of New Orleans. The insurance policy involved is a broad form theft policy covering losses of money and securities from inside the market premises and also protecting against 'Loss Outside the Premises' under certain circumstances stated therein.
The facts are these: On February 5, 1956, at approximately 11:30 p.m., plaintiff closed his supermarket and drove across town to his residence at 2522 General Pershing Street, taking with him two bags of money attributable to his business operations. Upon arrival, he placed the bags of money in a cedar chest in his bedroom. The following morning about 4:45 a.m. plaintiff removed from the chest one bag, counted the money, which amounted to $3,491.27, and prepared a bank deposit slip in that amount. The other bag, containing $2,160, he left in the chest. Plaintiff then left his house with the $3,491.27 and drove to his store, which he opened for business after putting the money in his safe.
Across the street from the market was the Mid City Branch of the Hibernia Bank, where plaintiff did all of his banking business. About 9:15 a.m. plaintiff took the $3,491.27 to the bank across the street and deposited it. He then returned to his store and continued to conduct his business until about 11:45 a.m., when he received a call informing him that his house had been burglarized. He returned to his home and found that, in addition to jewelry and other personal belongings, the $2,160, which had been left in the cedar chest, had been stolen.
Thereafter, plaintiff made claim against defendant for indemnity asserting that the loss was covered under the following provision of the policy:
'To pay for loss of money and securities by the actual destruction, disappearance or wrongful abstraction thereof outside the premises while being conveyed by a messenger.'
Upon defendant's refusal to pay the claim, plaintiff brought this action, which, after a trial on its merits, was dismissed by the district court. Hence this appeal.
The sole issue presented for determination is whether plaintiff's loss is covered under the above quoted clause, which insures against theft of money outside the premises 'while being conveyed by a messenger'. 1
Plaintiff contends that the money, when stolen, was being conveyed by him to the bank, because he fully intended to return to his home later in the day, pick up the $2,160, and take it to the bank for deposit. He asks that we adopt a liberal interpretation of the words 'being conveyed' so as to find their meaning the same as the words 'in transit', adverting to decisions which have held that property insured while 'in transit' is covered not only during periods of actual movement, but also while temporarily at rest during a continuous undertaking.
On the other hand, defendant asserts that the language of the clause at issue is plain and unambiguous and the words must be given their usual and commonly accepted meaning. To fortify this position, defense counsel directs our attention to decisions wherein words identical to those here in question have been held explicit and construed so as to deny relief to plaintiffs who have suffered a loss under circumstances closely analogous to those involved in the case at bar.
None of the cases cited by either litigant are Louisiana decisions, for there seems to be no jurisprudence in this state which has construed wording in an insurance policy which is similar to that now before us. However, it is well settled in Louisiana that policies of insurance are contracts between the parties and, while all ambiguities must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer, courts have no authority to alter terms of policies under the guise of interpretation when they are couched in unambiguous language. See Hemel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 211 La. 95, 29 So.2d 483 and authorities there cited. Accordingly, it must first be determined whether there is any ambiguity in the meaning of the words 'while being conveyed by a messenger'.
Counsel for plaintiff contends in his brief that the word 'conveyed', as used in the policy, is ambiguous because it 'suggests the idea of passing from one place to another place' while 'the insurance contract is silent on whether the act of conveying must be fast or slow, direct or indirect, without any temporary interruption or with any temporary interruption, or with or without periodic rests'.
Webster's New International Dictionary defines the word 'convey' as follows:
'Convey * * * To accompany; esp. to convoy, conduct, guide or lead. Obs. 2. To bear from one place to another; to carry, transport * *
Page 4 To cause to pass from one place or person to another; to serve as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landry v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Co.
...for the parties." Atlas Lubricant Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co. of N.J., 293 So.2d 550, 552 (La.App. 4 Cir.1974); Monteleone v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 239 La. 773, 120 So.2d 70 (1960); Hemel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 211 La. 95, 29 So.2d 483 (1947); Edwards v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Ten......
-
Calcasieu-Marine Nat. Bank of Lake Charles v. American Emp. Ins. Co.
...to strain to find such ambiguities, if, in so doing, they defeat probable intentions of the parties. See Monteleone v. American Empire Insurance Co., 1960, 239 La. 773, 120 So.2d 70, 72. 9 This is so even when the result is an apparently harsh consequence to the insured. See State Bank of P......
-
Pareti v. Sentry Indem. Co.
...the guise of contractual interpretation when the policy provisions are couched in unambiguous language. Monteleone v. American Emp. Ins. Co., 239 La. 773, 120 So.2d 70 (La.1960); Edwards v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn., 210 La. 1024, 29 So.2d 50 The court of appeal concluded that the polic......
-
Fullilove v. U.S. Cas. Co. of N. Y.
...Life Ins. Co., 214 La. 772, 38 So.2d 777; Albritton v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 224 La. 522, 70 So.2d 111; Monteleone v. American Employers' Insurance Co., 239 La. 773, 120 So.2d 70. In the Muse case, cited supra, this Court declined to add or delete words in the insurance policy to reach a......