Pennsylvania Cas. Co. v. Washington Portland Cement Co.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1911
• Citation: Pennsylvania Cas. Co. v. Washington Portland Cement Co., 63 Wash. 689, 116 P. 284 (Wash. 1911)
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA CASUALTY CO. v. WASHINGTON PORTLAND CEMENT CO.

116 P. 284

63 Wash. 689

PENNSYLVANIA CASUALTY CO. v. WASHINGTON PORTLAND CEMENT CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 27, 1911

Department 1.Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Leroy V. Newcomb Judge Pro Tem.

Action by the Pennsylvania Casualty Company against the Washington Portland Cement Company.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Affirmed.

Million & Houser and Thomas Smith, for appellant.

R. S Eskridge and R. G. Hutchinson, for respondent.

GOSE J.

In June, 1905, the Pacific Construction Company, hereafter called the construction company, entered into a contract with the Washington Portland Cement Company, the appellant whereby the former agreed to superintend certain construction work for the latter.The contract, after reciting that the appellant was about to commence the construction of a plant for the manufacture of Portland cement, provided that the construction company should furnish 'all equipment tools, and implements commonly used to construct, erect, and complete all work in connection with the clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction of the flumes and trestles, intake and bulkheads, power house and transmission lines, railroad and tramway included in the plant.'It further provided that: 'The Pacific Construction Company further agrees to furnish all camp outfit for housing and feeding the men employed on said work, for which they shall be paid at the rate of $5.25 per week, the same to be deducted from the wages of said employés and paid to the Pacific Construction Company.'And further provided: 'The Pacific Construction Company is to be paid as full compensation for furnishing the above equipment, tools, and outfit, and for superintending the construction of the work as aforesaid, ten per cent. upon the cost of all material and labor entering into the construction work.'It was also agreed that the general manager of the construction company should act in an advisory capacity to the general manager and resident engineer of the appellant in all matters pertaining to the work, when his services were desired, without additional compensation other than his expenses; that the appellant should deposit in a designated bank at Seattle, to the credit of the construction company, the sum of $2,000, and that, in addition thereto, it should honor upon presentation all drafts drawn by the construction company 'for labor and materials as per invoices and pay rolls, said invoices to be first O. K.'d by the general manager of both companies, and in addition thereto will honor drafts for the ten per cent. maturing and becoming due' to the construction company as the work progresses; and that all checks drawn by the construction company against the bank account should be first countersigned by some designated agent of the appellant.Thereafter, and on the 21st day of June, 1905, the respondentPennsylvania Casualty Company entered into a contract of insurance with the construction company, whereby it agreed to indemnify the construction company for the period of one year against loss or liability imposed upon it by law on account of bodily injuries or death suffered by any employé of the assured in the prosecution of the work.The respondent, casualty company, brought this suit against the construction company and the appellant to recover the balance of an unpaid premium.From a judgment in its favor against the appellant, this appeal is prosecuted.

The appellant contends that there is no liability upon it for the payment of any part of the premium.An analysis of the contract makes it clear, we think, that the construction company was the agent of the appellant in carrying on the work.The construction company agreed to furnish the 'equipment, tools, and implements,' and to superintend the construction, for a commission of 10 per cent. of the cost of the labor and material.It further agreed to furnish 'all camp outfits for housing and feeding the men employed on said work' for $5.25 per...