Nevers v. Aetna Ins. Co., Inc., 1852--II
| Decision Date | 11 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1852--II,1852--II |
| Citation | 14 Wn.App. 906,546 P.2d 1240 |
| Parties | , 1977 A.M.C. 2017 Robert M. NEVERS, Appellant, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Dennis J. LaPorte, Tacoma, for appellant.
Charles M. Davis and Paul M. Poliak of Madden & Poliak, Seattle, for respondent.
Plaintiff Robert M. Nevers appeals from a judgment denying his claim for indemnity under his 'all risks' yachtsman's hull policy with defendant, Aetna Insurance Company.
The facts are simple. Plaintiff purchased the boat and obtained the most comprehensive insurance coverage available. Subsequently it was discovered that he had purchased a stolen boat, and he surrendered it to the true owner.
The issue on appeal is whether the insuring agreements of the policy were broad enough to encompass a loss of the boat due to a defective title. We agree with the trial court's determination that the policy did not cover the loss.
The pertinent provisions of the insuring agreements and exclusions are as follows:
Perils. The insurance provided by this section covers against:
(a) Fire and all risks of physical loss or damage to the described property from any external cause, except as hereinafter provided.
(b) Physical loss or damage to the described property directly caused by the following:
(1) Explosions, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, or any latent defect in the machinery or hull (excluding the cost and expense of replacing or repairing the defective part);
(2) Negligence of master, mariners, engineers or pilots; provided such loss or damage has not resulted from want of due diligence by the owner of the yacht or by the insured.
There are several exclusions listed in the policy which are not pertinent to the issue. There is no exclusion, however, for defects in title. Plaintiff contends that the term 'all risks' is broad enough to cover title defects; that he or the average man would believe the title defect to be encompassed within the coverage; and that he, as the insured, is entitled to the most favorable construction of the policy provision. Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. McManemy, 72 Wash.2d 211, 432 P.2d 537 (1967).
Plaintiff's contention has one serious flaw. He attempts to isolate the term 'all risks' from the balance of the insuring agreement in order to create an ambiguity which will work to his advantage. We agree with the trial court's determination that, read as a whole, there is no ambiguity in the phrase 'all risks of physical loss or damage to the described property from any external cause . . .' Defective title is clearly not a 'physical loss or damage . . . from any external cause . . .'
While a phrase in an insurance policy must be interpreted in accordance with the way it would be understood by the average man purchasing insurance, Ames v. Baker, 68 Wash.2d 713, 415 P.2d 74 (1966), the phrase should not be isolated and construed by itself without reference to its context or the purpose of the provision in which the phrase is contained. Riordan v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Ins. Co., 11 Wash.App. 707, 525 P.2d 804 (1974).
When read in that context and with the purpose of the insuring agreement 1 in mind, we find no ambiguity, and the provision is easily understood. Consequently, the policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boeing Co. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
...according to its clear meaning and purpose, regardless of the coverage the insured may have thought he had. Nevers v. Aetna Ins. Co., 14 Wash.App. 906, 908, 546 P.2d 1240 (1976). This court has on several occasions specifically declined to adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations, unde......
-
Sanzotta v. Devor
... ... Holliman v ... Allstate Ins. Co., 86 Ohio St.3d 414, 415, 715 N.E.2d ... v ... Browning-Ferris Indus. Of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 321, ... 322, 474 N.E.2d 271 ... interests in the land. Id.; see also Nevers v. Aetna Ins ... Co., 14 Wash.App. 906, 546 ... ...
-
Witcher Const. Co. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
...differ mainly in the procedures for designating and proving the occurrence of insured events); see also Nevers v. Aetna Ins. Co., 14 Wash.App. 906, 546 P.2d 1240, 1241 n. 1 (1976) (requiring proof of loss to the insured property); John P. Gorman, All Risks of Loss v. All Loss: An Examinatio......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Tropical Shipping & Constru.
...that is out of commission." 9 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d at § 137:11; cf. Nevers v. Aetna Ins. Co., 546 P.2d 1240, 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976) (holding that an "all risks" yachtsman's hull policy was not broad enough to provide coverage for the loss of the boat du......
-
Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.: Cercla Response Costs Covered "as Damages" Under Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policies
...889, 784 P.2d at 517. 215. Puget Construction, 64 Wash. 2d at 454, 392 P.2d at 228. 216. Id. at 392, P.2d at 230. 217. 14 Wash. App. 906, 546 P.2d 1240 218. Boeing, 113 Wash. 2d at 894, 784 P.2d at 519-20. 219. Nevers, 14 Wash. App. at 907, 546 P.2d at 1240. 220. Id. at 907, 546 P.2d at 124......