Peerless Ins. Co. v. Wood, 7828
| Decision Date | 18 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. C,No. 7828,7828 |
| Citation | 685 A.2d 1173 |
| Parties | PEERLESS INSURANCE CO. v. Clair D. WOOD. DecisionLawum 96 74. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Anne M. Carney, James D. Poliquin, Norman Hanson & Detroy, Portland, for Plaintiff.
Warren M. Silver, Bangor, for Defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, JJ.
Plaintiff, Peerless Insurance Company ("Peerless"), appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Saufley, J.) declaring that the actions of Kenneth Hirst, an employee of the insured Hofsaes Construction Company ("Hofsaes"), are covered by a comprehensive contractor's policy issued by Peerless. On appeal, Peerless argues that the Superior Court erroneously interpreted the exception in its policy providing coverage for the "occasional and infrequent use" of certain non-owned commercial vehicles. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
The facts, as found by the court, may be summarized as follows: While driving in his own truck to the Bangor Mall to purchase some forms at the request of his supervisor, Hirst struck a vehicle driven by Christine Wood. Wood died as a result of this accident. Her husband, Clair D. Wood, filed a wrongful death action against both Hirst and Hofsaes, his employer. Hofsaes is insured pursuant to a comprehensive contractor's policy issued by Peerless. Peerless responded with this declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court naming Hirst, Hofsaes, and Wood as defendants, and seeking a determination of its obligation to defend or indemnify Hofsaes under the terms of its policy. The parties then settled the underlying action. Hirst and Hofsaes were released from Wood's claims and dismissed as defendants in the present action after assigning their rights to Wood. Thus, the question is purely one of coverage under the terms of the policy.
The comprehensive contractor's liability policy issued by Peerless provides coverage for bodily injury liability incurred by any employee of Hofsaes "while acting within the scope of his duties as such." Exclusion B of the policy, however, excludes from coverage "bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of (1) any automobile or aircraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured." Nonetheless, this exclusion "does not apply to ... the occasional and infrequent use of a non-owned commercial automobile by an employee of the named insured" in the business of the named insured. Commercial automobile is defined as "an automobile of the truck type or other automobile designed for the transportation of material or merchandise over public roads."
Hirst was the owner of the Nissan pickup truck involved in the accident in this case. He used his truck to drive to the construction site in Brewer where he worked as a foreman. Hirst had worked at the site for a period of four months before the accident. During that time, he ran errands off the worksite for Hofsaes only twice. Hirst was required to use the tool box attached to the bed of his truck to keep safe a number of small, expensive tools that were susceptible to theft if left at the work site. He loaded these tools into his truck at night and locked them in until he removed them the next day. Hirst kept the tools in the box when he left the worksite and never took the tools out for use or storage at another site. His truck served as storage in lieu of a facility at the worksite.
One week before the accident, Hirst's supervisor asked him to pick up some forms at a stationery store in Bangor. On the evening of the accident, Hirst returned from the work site to his boarding house. He left the house for dinner but decided to pick up the forms for his supervisor and then look for a restaurant. He was on his way to the store when the accident occurred. The tools he stored for Hofsaes were in his truck at the time of the accident.
After a bench trial, the Superior Court held that Hirst was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and, thus, was an insured under the policy. The court also held that, because the incident involved bodily injury or property damage arising out of the operation and use of an automobile, Exclusion B applied. The court found, however, that Hirst's truck was a non-owned commercial automobile "used" in Hofsaes's business only on an occasional and infrequent basis. The truck's use at the time of the accident was held to be the type of use contemplated by the exception to Exclusion B and intended by the parties to be covered by the policy.
The meaning of the language used in an insurance contract is a question of law. Globe Indem. Co. v. Jordan, 634 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co. v. Fish
...field, in light of what a more than casual reading of the policy would reveal to an ordinarily intelligent insured." Peerless Ins. Co. v. Wood, 685 A.2d 1173, 1174 (Me.1996). As with other contracts, language should ordinarily be understood to conform with the intention of the parties, whic......
-
Me. Woods Pellet Co. v. W. World Ins. Co.
...in light of what a more than casual reading of the policy would reveal to an ordinarily intelligent insured." Peerless Ins. Co. v. Wood , 685 A.2d 1173, 1174 (Me. 1996). The insured bears the initial burden of showing that coverage for the injury exists, then the insurer bears the burden of......
-
Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pettegrow
...in light of what a more than casual reading of the policy would reveal to an ordinarily intelligent insured.” Peerless Ins. Co. v. Wood, 685 A.2d 1173, 1174 (Me. 1996). The insured bears the initial burden of showing that coverage for the injury exists, then the insurer bears the burden of ......
-
Saucier v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...language used in an insurance contract is a question of law. See Jack v. Tracy, 1999 ME 13, ¶ 8, 722 A.2d 869, 871; Peerless Ins. Co. v. Wood, 685 A.2d 1173, 1174 (Me.1996). We construe insurance policies liberally in favor of the insured and any ambiguity in the contract is resolved agains......