Prentice Packing & Storage Co. v. United Pac. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 August 1940 |
| Docket Number | 27799. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | PRENTICE PACKING & STORAGE CO. v. UNITED PAC. INS. CO. |
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 4, 1940.
Department 2.
Action by the Prentice Packing & Storage Company against the United Pacific Insurance Company, formerly United Pacific Casualty Insurance Company, to recover on an accident policy. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Reversed with directions.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Robert J. Willis, judge.
Bruce Bartley, of Seattle, and Harry L. Olson, of Yakima, for appellant.
Rigg Brown & Halverson and Paul M. Goode, all of Yakima, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought suit upon a policy of insurance issued by defendant and sought in its complaint to recover damages for loss sustained as the result of the bursting of an ammonia pipe in one of the rooms of plaintiff's cold storage plant wherein a quantity of packed fruit had been assembled. In a trial Before a jury, a verdict was returned for plaintiff and from a judgment thereon, defendant has appealed.
Respondent is a fruit packing and storing corporation, operating a cold storage plant and refrigerating system at Westbrook, near Yakima, Washington. Appellant is engaged in the insurance business, with offices in Seattle.
On September 24, 1938, appellant issued to respondent a policy of insurance by the terms of which appellant undertook to insure respondent against loss from accident as defined in the policy. The term 'accident' was defined as '* * * a sudden and accidental tearing asunder of the object [refrigerating system] or any part thereof caused by pressure of the refrigerant or brine therein, but leakage at valves, fittings, joints or connections shall not constitute an accident.' (Italics ours.) Ammonia was the refrigerant used by respondent in its refrigerating system.
The policy specifically limited the insurance to loss from accident as therein designated; it did not include accidents caused by other forces, whether operating within or without the refrigerating system. This distinction goes to the root of the present controversy, and gives rise to the first, or basic, issue between the parties. Respondent contends that the bursting of the pipe was caused by pressure of the refrigerant, while appellant's contention is that it was not so caused, or, at least, that respondent failed to establish such cause or any cause for which appellant can be held liable.
With reference to the types of property insured, the pertinent provisions of the policy obligated appellant '(Section I) To pay the Assured for loss on the property of the Assured directly damaged by such accident * * *' And '(Section III) To pay * * * such amounts as the Assured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability of the Assured for loss on the property of others, directly damaged by such accident, including liability for loss of use of such damaged property of others; * * *' (Italics supplied.) Section III of the policy as just quoted forms the basis of the second issue between the parties, namely, whether or not, in any event, appellant is liable for loss of fruit stored in respondent's warehouse, but owned by persons other than the warehouseman.
The facts with reference to the construction and arrangement of respondent's refrigerating system are practically without dispute, and we shall therefore to a large extent avail ourselves of the descriptive matter contained in the briefs.
Respondent's refrigeration machine was of the usual reciprocating type, run by electric motors, which compressed the gaseous ammonia, forcing it into tanks and receivers, where, by virtue of pressure of about 150 pounds per square inch, it became liquid, and gave off considerable heat. This portion of the system, where the gas is compressed, is commonly referred to as the 'high side,' because in that side of the system, between the compressors and the expansion valve, the gas is compressed, and, prior to the time that it is allowed to expand, the pressure, in terms of pounds per square inch, is higher than that in the expansion area. From the high side of the system, the ammonia enters the expansion valve, where it is allowed to expand and proceed through a pipeline into the coils. In the process of expansion, the gas takes up heat, and thereby cools the coils. Thus, after passing the expansion valve, the pressure is reduced from 150 pounds per square inch to between 25 and 35 pounds per square inch, and that side of the system is therefore known as the 'low pressure side.'
In respondent's plant, the pipeline between the expansion valve and the cooling coils was a one-half inch heavy steel pipe which came vertically out of the expansion valve on the east wall of the cold storage room, proceeded southerly, nearly parallel to the ceiling, for a distance of about sixteen feet, and then executed a right-angle turn and proceeded westerly about twenty-two inches, where it was threaded into a flange. In the latter area, the pipeline was suspended by metal hangers about fourteen inches below the ceiling. The opposite end of the flange was threaded onto a two-inch pipe which comprised a part of the cooling coil. The flange formed the connecting and reducing point between the one-half inch feeder pipe leading from the expansion valve and the two-inch pipe comprising the cooling apparatus. The flange was drawn together by means of four bolts, with a gasket in between to prevent leakage at the connection. According to the evidence in the case, standard heavy one-half inch steel pipe has a tested pressure of 700 pounds per square inch, a working pressure of from 1,298 to 1,750 pounds per square inch, and a bursting pressure of approximately 14,000 pounds per square inch.
The break, or rupture, over which this controversy arose, occurred in the first or second thread of the one-half inch pipe, just at the outside edge of the flange. The break was across the top, and extended from thirty to forty per cent of the way around the circumference, of the pipe, and its width was estimated to be from 1/32 to 1/4 of an inch. The lower two-thirds of the pipe was not broken.
In the storage room containing the equipment just described, there had been placed serveral thousand boxes of apples and pears, arranged in tiers of varying heights. Some of the tiers were six boxes high; others attained a height of thirteen boxes. These boxes had been stacked underneath. and around, the cooling coils.
On October 8, 1938, one Leland Wilson, an employee of respondent, was engaged with other employees in stacking boxes of fruit in the storage room. Wilson was standing on a six-box tier of apples, approximately seven feet below the ceiling, and about six feet below, or away, from the half-inch pipeline where it entered the flange. Another employee was operating a small truck on the floor a short distance from where Wilson stood. At the time immediately preceding the accident, Wilson was engaged in placing sheets of heavy paper between the coils and the fruit to protect the fruit against freezing.
Whether or not Wilson came in contact with, or exerted any force upon, the pipe, at, or immediately prior to, the time of the break, is in dispute, and that dispute presents sents one of the factual issues in this case.
In a deposition, taken by appellant shortly Before the trial, and when Wilson was no longer in the employ of respondent, Wilson testified that he had stumbled and fallen against the pipe. On the other hand, respondent's witnesses testified that, in prior conversations with both his employer and an agent of appellant, Wilson had stated positively that he had not come in contact with the pipe. In addition to that evidence, respondent introduced at the trial a letter which it had written to Wilson, prior to the taking of his deposition, as follows:
'Prentice Packing & Storage Co.
'By E. S. Prentice' the following reply, which was also introduced the following reply, which was also introduced in evidence:
'Leland Wilson'
None of Wilson's fellow employees was actually watching Wilson at the time of the occurrence, but each of them testified that he did not see or hear anyone or anything fall against the pipe.
In any event, while Wilson was working in the vicinity of the half-inch feeder line, a break occurred in the threads of the pipe at the point where it fitted into the flange. The refrigerant, ammonia, gushed out of the conduit, making a noise that was variously described as something like the blowout of an automobile tire, and like the sound of steam escaping from a train starting out on a frosty morning. Wilson, who became enveloped in a cloud of ammonia, jumped from his position on the tier of boxes and fell onto...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Washington v. United States
...the State of Washington is the same. Neel v. Henne, supra, 30 Wash.2d at pages 36-37, 190 P.2d 775; Prentice, etc., Co. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 1940, 5 Wash.2d 144, 164, 106 P.2d 314, 323. 12 Rule 75, Rules of Civil Procedure concerning records on appeal to the Court of Appeals, provides i......
-
Flyzik v. Travelers Ins. Co., 29127.
... ... R. Co., 107 Minn. 285, 119 N.W. 1061." Prentice ... Packing & Storage Co. v. United Pacific ... ...
-
In re Involuntary Treatment of A.J.
...of fact because the witnesses based their opinions on inadmissible evidence. A.J. cites Prentice Packing & Storage Co. v. United Pacific Insurance Co., 5 Wash.2d 144, 164, 106 P.2d 314 (1940)in support of this contention. But Prentice establishes no such rule. There, the court stated verdic......
-
Hash by Hash v. Children's Orthopedic Hosp.
...and will be disregarded entirely where the factual basis for the opinion is found to be inadequate. Prentice Packing & Storage Co. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 5 Wash.2d 144, 106 P.2d 314 (1940); Theonnes v. Hazen, 37 Wash.App. 644, 681 P.2d 1284 (1984). In the context of a summary judgment mot......