Sanco Co. v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wis.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1959 |
| Citation | 154 A.2d 454,102 N.H. 253 |
| Parties | SANCO COMPANY, Inc. v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. OF WISCONSIN. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Green, Green, Romprey & Sullivan, Manchester (Meyer Green, Manchester, orally), for plaintiff.
Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Nassikas & Pingree, Manchester (John N. Nassikes, Manchester, orally), for defendant.
The pertinent coverage provisions of the plaintiff's policy of insurance are as follows:
Expressly excluded from coverage B was certain damage described under 'Exclusions' as follows:
'This policy does not apply: * * * (h) under coverage B, to injury to or destruction of (1) property owned or occupied by or rented to the insured, or (2) except with respect to liability under side-track agreements covered by this policy, property used by the insured, or (3) except with respect to liability under such side-track agreements or the use of elevators or escalators at premises owned by, rented to or controlled by the named insured, property in the care, custody or control of the insured or property as to which the insured for any purpose is exercising physical control * * *.'
The determination of the problem of whether the property damaged comes within exclusions h(2) and h(3) of the policy of insurance depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that at the time the property was damaged it was in the possessory and not proprietary control of the plaintiff.
At the time of the accident, the employees of the plaintiff 'took care of all of the operations in running the elevator, including the manipulation of the ropes that controlled the elevator, there being no independent power supply * * *.' The damage occurred in the process of lifting some planks in the elevator from the first to the third or fourth floor where repairs were being made when '* * * the planks jammed in some way on a door involved in the operation of the elevators so that it caused damage to the elevator and its appurtenances.'
On other occasions when plaintiff had done work for the Manchester Hosiery Mills when the mill was in operation, it was customary for an employee of Manchester to operate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arrigo's Fleet Service, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co.
...Co. v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 58 N.J.Super. 179, 184, 155 A.2d 789, 792 (1959); Sanco Co. v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 102 N.H. 253, 154 A.2d 454 (1959); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Holmsgaard, 10 Ill.App.2d 1, 9, 133 N.E.2d 910, 914 (1956); and Crist v. Po......
-
McAllister v. Maltais
... ... the jury that the standard to determine liability of the defendant to Cora ... was gross ... ...
-
Elcar Mobile Homes, Inc. v. D. K. Baxter, Inc.
...control. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mason-Moore-Tracy, Inc., 194 F.2d 173 (2 Cir., 1952); Sanco Co., Inc. v. Employees' Mutual Ins. Co. of Wis., 102 N.H. 253, 154 A.2d 454 (Sup.Ct.1959). Cf. General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wright, 7 Misc.2d 331, 161 N.Y.S.2d 974 Equally unmanageable as......
-
Paktank Louisiana, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc.
...dock as an essential and integral component of the improvements and equipment. See Sanco Company v. Employer's Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, 102 N.H. 253, 154 A.2d 454, 455 (1959). At the time of the fire, Paktank "used" Gold Bond's dock within the meaning of exclusion "H(2)"......