Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Weaver, 41984
| Decision Date | 23 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 41984,41984 |
| Citation | 133 So.2d 635,242 Miss. 141 |
| Parties | PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. Elias WEAVER, Jr. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
W. W. Brand, Jr., Houston, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, for appellant.
Armis E. Hawkins, McCraine & Fox, Houston, for appellee.
This is a suit brought in the Circuit Court of Chickasaw County by appellee, Elias Weaver, Jr., on an insurance policy covering an owner for the accidental death of livestock in transit. The principal issues are whether the circumstantial evidence sufficiently showed that certain cattle which were never found died as the result of overturning of the truck, and whether the insurance company is estopped to deny the validity of a method of adjustment of the amount of loss for certain injured cattle sold by agreement with appellant's agents. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $8,351.94 against the defendant, Providence Washington Insurance Company, appellant here. We affirm the judgment based upon that verdict.
On June 30, 1959, the insurance company, through its agent, Wallace Norman of Houston, Mississippi, wrote for Weaver an inland marine policy covering three tractors and trailers, on a motor truck cargo owners' form. The policy provided as follows:
'Owners Coverage For Cargo In Transit--This policy insures the lawful goods and merchandise consisting principally of livestock owned by the insured or for which the insured may be legally liable, for direct loss or damage caused by any of the perils specified herein in transit while loaded for shipment in or on vehicles described herein anywhere within the radius specified in Paragraph 3 of this form. * * *'
'Perils Covered--This policy covers direct loss or damage caused by: * * * (F) Overturning of vehicles on which the shipments insured are being transported; (Overturning as used herein shall mean the upsetting of the vehicle to such an extent that it comes to rest on its side or top). * * *'
Weaver operated the Chicasaw Commission Company in the business of selling cattle. On Friday night, July 31, 1959, appellee had 92 cattle loaded on a trailer-tractor unit insured under the policy. These were thoroughbred calves 4-6 months of age, of an average value each of $118.58. The trailer was properly loaded, in two decks. The driver, David Wright, left Houston, Mississippi, around 9 P.M., headed for Amarillo, Texas. Near Minter City, Mississippi, a brake hose came loose, causing the rear wheels to lock and pulling the right wheels of the tractor and trailer onto the right or north shoulder of the highway. The driver procured a wrecker, and, while it was being hooked up, the trailer turned over on its right side. The front part of the top of the trailer burst open, and after considerable effort the driver managed to pull all of the cattle still living out of it.
About 200 yards north of the highway was Tallahatchie River, a flowing stream 150-200 feet wide. North of the highway was an old fence with a corn patch between it and the road. After the driver got the cattle out, they started through the corn patch, and he heard them hit the fence, tear it down, and move swiftly toward the river. When the cattle were loaded, in accord with good practice in the business, they had not been fed or watered for about 12 hours, so when the trailer turned over these cattle had not had any feed or water for 17-18 hours.
After Weaver sent other trucks and employees to the scene, they rounded up a number of the calves, but did not find 36 of them. The men saw tracks going into the river. They pulled one calf out of the quicksand on the edge of the river. Weaver's employees went around to the north side of the river, but found no tracks coming out of it. They looked up and down that area on both sides for several miles, but failed to find the 36 missing cattle. Eighteen cattle died immediately in the wreck. Thirty-eight head were brought back to Houston on Sunday night, and two of them died. After several days of diligent search, Weaver's employees were not able to find any of the 36 missing cattle. They were never located.
Appellant concedes it is liable for the loss of the twenty cattle which died at the scene or shortly after the accident, and has deposited that sum of $2,371.60 into the registry of the trial court for Weaver's benefit.
The first issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the 36 cattle, which disappeared and were never found, died as the result of the accident. The insurance policy covers direct loss caused by overturning of the vehicle where, as required by the exclusion clause, the accident caused death or rendered death necessary. A plaintiff is not bound to prove a loss beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient to warrant a recovery if he shows by a fair preponderance of evidence that the loss was brought about by a risk insured against. Circumstantial evidence from which the jury might reasonably infer the facts of the death of these cattle and the accident being its proximate cause is sufficient for this purpose. 46 C.J.S. Insurance Sec. 1356; 29A Am.Jur., Insurance, Secs. 1874, 1875.
The policy covers 'direct loss' caused by overturning of the vehicle. The phrase 'direct loss' means a loss occurring directly from the overturning and the immediate or proximate cause, as distinguished from remote. 12A Words and Phrases, pp. 137-138 (1954); 5 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice (1941), Sec. 3083. If the cause designated in the policy is the dominant and efficient cause of the loss, the right of the insured to recover will not be defeated because there were contributing causes. Evana Plantation v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 1952, 214 Miss. 321, 325, 58 So.2d 797. In short the proximate cause to which the loss is to be attributed may be the dominant or efficient cause, although other and incidental causes may be nearer in time to the result and operate more immediately in producing the loss. 29A Am.Jur., Insurance, Sec. 1134.
Appellant used two expert witnesses with considerable knowledge of cattle and their propensities. Their testimony will be discussed subsequently. However, considering the accepted rules and the evidence, we think it was an issue for the jury as to whether the 36 cattle which disappeared and were never found died as the proximate result of the overturning of the trailer. They were shaken up from the overturn and had had no food or water for about 18 hours. When they were removed from the trailer, they broke through the corn field and a fence and headed toward the river, which had quicksand on its banks. Many tracks were found going into the stream, and none coming out on either side. Other evidence indicated these calves were badly bruised and highly susceptible to pneumonia and other diseases when exposed to the elements.
Thirty-eight live cattle were returned by Weaver's employees to Houston on Sunday night following the accident. Two of them died. Weaver testified without dispute that Monday morning he telephoned Wallace Norman, the local agent for appellant insurance company, who had written the policy for him. He advised Norman that the remaining 36 cattle in Houston 'were awfully sick and all bruised up and everyone of them was going to die if something wasn't done with them.' Norman stated that he would get in touch with 'the insurance company', call him back, and let him know what to do. Plaintiff held a sale each Monday at his Chickasaw Commission Company. Norman then telephoned appellee and told him to go ahead and sell the cattle 'and get what we could out of them and that they would take care of the difference.' Relying on this, and in accord with what an adjuster told his employees, Weaver sold the cattle at his barn on Monday, advising the purchasers that they had been injured in an accident. Before the accident these 36 cattle were worth $4,268.88; after it and at the sale they brought $2,558.22. This represented a loss to Weaver of $1,710.66.
Weaver said that he had handled cattle for many years and knew when they were bruised or sick. He told Norman that all of them were going to die 'if something wasn't done with them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Latham v. Hayes, 55769
...not to be overridden, absent a clear showing that such discretion has been "wrongfully exercised." Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Weaver, 242 Miss. 141, 153, 133 So.2d 635, 640 (1961). In this case, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Although the plaintiff certainl......
-
James v. Mabus
... ... Andrew Jackson Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 566 So.2d 1172, 1177 (Miss.1990); ... See Providence Washington ... Ins. Co. v. Weaver, 242 Miss. 141, 133 ... ...
-
Hood v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...of the death of the cattle and the accident being its proximate cause is sufficient for this purpose. Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Weaver, 242 Miss. 141, 133 So.2d 635 (1961). The Court has accepted the inventory method of proving a loss of personal property. See Phenix Ins. Co. v. Dor......
-
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Layton
...admission of Dr. Wade's testimony (an expert witness) was within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Weaver, 242 Miss. 141, 133 So.2d 635 (1961). V.-VI. Did the court err in refusing to instruct the jury that appellee and her husband were on a joint Di......