Oceanic Fisheries Co., Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 27708.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | ROBINSON, Chief Justice. |
| Citation | 9 Wn.2d 484,115 P.2d 714 |
| Parties | OCEANIC FISHERIES CO., INC., v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. |
| Decision Date | 18 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | 27708. |
115 P.2d 714
9 Wn.2d 484
OCEANIC FISHERIES CO., INC.,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.
No. 27708.
Supreme Court of Washington
July 18, 1941
Department 1.
Action by Oceanic Fisheries Company, Inc., against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, to recover on employer's liability policy. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed. [115 P.2d 715]
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Hugh C. Todd, Judge.
Koenigsberg & Sanford, of Seattle, for appellant.
Eggerman & Rosling and DeWitt Williams, all of Seattle, for respondent.
ROBINSON, Chief Justice.
Respondent, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, June 6, 1935, issued to Oceanic Fisheries Company, Inc., a policy of employer's liability insurance containing the following provisions:
[9 Wn.2d 486] 'The United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, hereinafter called the Company, does hereby agree:
'1 To Indemnify the person, firm or corporation named in Statement 1 of the schedule and hereinafter called the Assured, Against Loss From The Liability Imposed By Law Upon The Assured for damages on account of bodily injuries or death at any time resulting therefrom, suffered by any employe or employes of the Assured as the result of an accident while on or about the vessel or vessles described in the schedule of statements below while this policy is in force
'2. To Defend in the name and on behalf of the Assured any suit brought against the Assured to enforce a claim, whether groundless or not, for damages on account of bodily injuries or death at any time resulting therefrom, suffered or alleged to have been suffered by any employe or employes of the Assured described in the preceding paragraph and as the result of an accident occurring while this policy is in force.'
(The above provisions were contained in a 'Marine Employer's Endorsement' attached to and made a part of the policy.)
'In consideration of the reduced rate of premium for which this policy is issued, it is hereby understood and agreed, that in the event of no legal liability on the part of the assured for damages as conditioned in Insuring Clause One (1) of the Marine Employers Endorsement attached to this policy, this policy does not indemnify the assured against any liability for wages and maintenance of injured employees during disability or for cost of medical, surgical or hospital services or treatment or cure to injured employees of the assured or for any transportation charges incurred by the assured for the transportation of injured employes and anything in the policy or attached endorsements to the contrary is hereby amended accordingly. It is further understood and agreed that in event of a judgment at law against the assured for legal liability for [115 P.2d 716] damages as conditioned in Insuring Clause One (1) of the said Marine Employers Endorsement,[9 Wn.2d 487] this policy does indemnify the assured for such wages and maintenance of injured employes during disability and the cost of medical, surgical and hospital services or treatment and cure to injured employes of the assured and for transportation charges for the transportation of injured employes as may be included in any verdict for damages rendered against the assured, and anything in the policy or attached endorsements to the contrary is hereby amended accordingly.'
(The above provisions were contained in a typewritten 'endorsement' attached to and made a part of the policy.)
This case turns upon the construction to be given to the foregoing endorsements, and particularly, upon the words which we have italicized in the endorsement last quoted, 'as may be included in any verdict for damages rendered against the assured,' the appellant assured contending that they mean, which were legally capable of being included in such a verdict or might have been included therein, while the respondent contends they mean, as may actually have been included.
The controversy arises out of the following facts: Albert Haugen suffered a personal injury while employed on a vessel which the assured was operating in Alaskan waters. He received medical attention at Seward, and later, at the Marine hospital in Seattle. The expenses of his treatment at Seward and the cost of his transportation to Seattle were paid by the assured. Thereafter, he brought suit against the assured in the superior court of Washington for King county to recover damages with respect to his personal injury, and recovered a verdict and judgment for $1,000, which judgment was paid by the respondent insurance company.
Haugen then brought an admiralty action in the [9 Wn.2d 488] United States District Court at Seattle against the vessel, its master, owner, and charterer (the assured), alleging that he was still disabled and seeking recovery for further wages, maintenance and cure. This action was dismissed, the court holding the judgment of the state court, above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paulsell v. Peters, 28323.
...bore respondent's signature, and on its face indicated that it had been properly executed. Newfield was a bona fide purchaser for value. [115 P.2d 714.] When a loss must be borne by one of two innocent persons, it must fall upon the one who made the loss possible. By his own acts, though in......
-
Beckwith v. American President Lines, 26326-H
...v. Interlake S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 753, at page 756; Oceanic Fisheries Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 9 Wash.2d 484, 115 P.2d 714, at page 716; Occidental Indemnity Company v. Industrial Accident Commission, 24 Cal.2d 310, at page 312, 149 P.2d 841; The Progress, (Haugen ......
-
Hanley v. Most, 28159.
...We think the opinion, as written, is clear, but to avoid any controversy over the matter in the future, we will attempt to clarify it. [9 Wn.2d 484] Mrs. Hanley may bring any kind of an action that she sees fit, and it was not the intention of the opinion to limit the scope of that inquiry.......
-
Paulsell v. Peters, 28323.
...bore respondent's signature, and on its face indicated that it had been properly executed. Newfield was a bona fide purchaser for value. [115 P.2d 714.] When a loss must be borne by one of two innocent persons, it must fall upon the one who made the loss possible. By his own acts, though in......
-
Beckwith v. American President Lines, 26326-H
...v. Interlake S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 753, at page 756; Oceanic Fisheries Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 9 Wash.2d 484, 115 P.2d 714, at page 716; Occidental Indemnity Company v. Industrial Accident Commission, 24 Cal.2d 310, at page 312, 149 P.2d 841; The Progress, (Haugen ......
-
Hanley v. Most, 28159.
...We think the opinion, as written, is clear, but to avoid any controversy over the matter in the future, we will attempt to clarify it. [9 Wn.2d 484] Mrs. Hanley may bring any kind of an action that she sees fit, and it was not the intention of the opinion to limit the scope of that inquiry.......