Quality Dairy Co. v. Ft. Dearborn Cas. Underwriters

• Decision Date: 07 May 1929
• Docket Number: No. 20634.,20634.
• Citation: 16 S.W.2d 613
• Parties: QUALITY DAIRY CO. v. FT. DEARBORN CASUALTY UNDERWRITERS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

16 S.W.2d 613

QUALITY DAIRY CO. v. FT. DEARBORN CASUALTY UNDERWRITERS.

No. 20634.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 7, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the Quality Dairy Company against the Fort Dearborn Casualty Underwriters. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wilbur C. Schwartz, of St. Louis, for appellant.

A. J. Haverstick, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BENNICK, C.

This is an action for reimbursement, bought by plaintiff, the indemnitee, against defendant, the indemnitor, and founded upon a policy of liability insurance issued to the former by the latter. A trial was had to the court without the aid of a jury, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $2,990, from which defendant has duly appealed.

The case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts which, for the purposes of this opinion, disclose that the policy in question covered a certain automobile truck owned by plaintiff; that on September 27, 1924, while the policy was in full force and effect, said truck was being driven by one of plaintiff's employés, with a two-horse wagon attached to it; that while the truck was in use, the wagon became detached from it, and collided with an automobile in which one Marie Koerner was riding; that defendant was notified of the occurrence, and, after making an investigation of the accident, subsequently disclaimed liability under its policy, upon the ground that the accident was not caused by the truck by reason of its ownership, maintenance, or use, as set out in the policy; that said Marie Koerner instituted an action for damages against the plaintiff herein, which defendant refused to defend, and recovered judgment in the sum of $3,250, which plaintiff paid, together with the court costs incurred.

It appears from the policy that defendant had agreed to indemnify and insure plaintiff "against any loss by reason of the liability imposed by law upon the assured for damage on account of bodily injuries, whether fatal or non-fatal, accidentally suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, while this policy is in force, by any person, or persons, by the reason of ownership, maintenance, or use of any of the automobiles enumerated and described above."

The pleadings of the respective parties were all in conventional form, and are of unimportance upon the sole question in the case, which is whether or not the agreed statement of facts may be said to disclose that the injuries suffered by Marie Koerner were proximately caused by reason of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the automobile truck covered by the policy.

Counsel for defendant argues that the facts stated do not bring the claim within the coverage clause of the policy, since they do not show that the wagon became detached from the truck by reason of its ownership, maintenance, or use; that the cause of the...