Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-479,80-479 |
| Citation | 410 So.2d 40 |
| Parties | The RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. v. HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James R. Shaw and John S. Civils, Jr. of Huie, Fernambucq, Stewart & Smith, Birmingham, for appellants.
Joe C. Carroll of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham, for appellee.
Plaintiffs, Ranger Insurance Company and the owners of a motel then operating as the Holiday Motel, 1 filed suit against numerous defendants, including Hartford, etc., seeking damages for property loss arising from a fire at the motel on August 21, 1977, and for any resulting loss of profits. In addition, Ranger Insurance Company, which had the fire loss coverage, made a subrogation claim for amounts paid under its insurance policy. Prior to the fire, on August 8, 1977, employees of defendant Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (hereinafter Hartford) inspected the steam boilers, water heaters and other equipment in the motel. This general inspection was conducted in the boiler room where a water heater, allegedly connected with the fire, was located. Plaintiffs claimed that Hartford negligently inspected or failed to inspect the equipment properly once the duty to inspect was undertaken. That is, the inspection allegedly failed to locate, detect or otherwise ascertain the defective condition which caused the fire. According to plaintiffs, then, the fire was a proximate consequence of the allegedly negligent inspection. On November 30, 1979, Hartford's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court. Plaintiffs appealed that judgment. We affirm.
Plaintiffs contend that their complaint of negligent inspection stated a valid claim against Hartford, and therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Relying primarily upon Beasley v. MacDonald Engineering Company, 287 Ala. 189, 249 So.2d 844 (1971), plaintiffs argue that once Hartford voluntarily undertook to conduct an inspection of plaintiff's premises it was thereafter charged with the duty to perform the undertaking in a reasonable manner. Liability would arise from the negligent performance of the voluntary undertaking, i.e., the inspection.
Although we recognized in Beasley the common law right of recovery for negligent inspection, that case concerned a right of recovery by injured workers against a workmen's compensation insurance carrier for negligent safety inspections. The duty assumed by the carrier was the employer's duty to its employees to provide a reasonably safe place to work. That is, the carrier was liable to third persons, e.g., employees, for negligent performance of the undertaking. In the instant case, however, plaintiffs do not present a situation where an injured employee or some other third person claims negligent inspection by the insurer, but claim under a first person theory in which the insured alleges that it is entitled to benefit from the insured's inspection. Plaintiffs urge this court to ignore the relationship between the parties and to extend the common law right of recovery for negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking to claims based upon a first person theory of liability.
In Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company v. Pabst Brewing Company, 201 F. 617 (7th Cir. 1912), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the issue of negligent inspection in a tort action brought by an insured against its insurer, Hartford. The court stated that Id. at 630. The recognition of this general principle, however, was followed by an exception:
(N)o such rule of duty obtains in favor of the assured where the inspections are attributable alone to the policy provision for the sole benefit of the insurer, which would leave no ground for a finding of fact that they were understood between the parties to be made and accepted as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manstream v. United States Dept. of Agriculture
...in the lender's exercise of that right. (For the application of an analagous principle, see Ranger Insurance v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 40 (Ala.1982), supra.) But this principle does not prohibit the lender from voluntarily assuming a special relationsh......
-
In re Jefferson Cnty.
...is lawful does not lay the foundation of an action.”) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 40, 42 (Ala.1982) (no claim where there is no legally accepted injury). In this matter and as discussed in the portion......
-
Twomey v. Tuscaloosa Cnty.
...to plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. See, Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 40, 41 (Ala. 1982); Quillen v. Quillen, 388 So. 2d 985, 988 (Ala. 1980). Clearly, a defendant will not be liable to an injured......
-
Salter v. US
...to plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. See, Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 40, 41 (Ala.1982); Quillen v. Quillen, 388 So.2d 985, 988 (Ala.1980). Clearly, a defendant will not be liable to an injured pla......
-
Chapter 12
...Union Insurance Co. v. DeShazo, 845 So.2d 766 (Ala. 2002); Ranger Insurance Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 40, 41–42 (Ala. 1982). [21] See § 12.02[3][a] infra.[22] See § 12.02[3][b] infra.[23] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323. See also, § 324A from the......
-
CHAPTER 14 Loss Control Services
...Union Insurance Co. v. DeShazo, 845 So.2d 766 (Ala. 2002); Ranger Insurance Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 40, 41–42 (Ala. 1982). [21] See § 14.02[3][a] infra.[22] See § 14.02[3][b] infra.[23] Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 323. See also, § 324A from th......