Soukop v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited, of London, England

• Citation: 108 S.W.2d 86,341 Mo. 614
• Parties: William Soukup v. The Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., of London, England, a Corporation, Garnishee of Scott Ford, Doing Business as Scott Ford Battery Company, Appellant
• Decision Date: 30 July 1937
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

108 S.W.2d 86

341 Mo. 614

William Soukup v. The Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., of London, England, a Corporation, Garnishee of Scott Ford, Doing Business as Scott Ford Battery Company, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 30, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Claude O Pearcy, Judge.

Affirmed.

James R. Sullivan, Arthur R. Wolfe, Bishop & Claiborne and George E. Heneghan for appellant.

(1) The court below should have given and read to the jury appellant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence at the close of plaintiff's case. (a) The policies of insurance issued by appellant only extended coverage to injuries sustained by reason of accidents and plaintiff's original judgment on which garnishment on execution was run was based on a recovery for occupational disease which was peculiar or incident to the work or process carried on in plaintiff's employment and was not sustained by reason of accident. Belleville Enameling & Stamping Co. v. United States Cas. Co., 266 Ill.App 586; U.S. Radium Corp. v. Glove Ind. Co., 178 A 271; Miller v. St. Joseph Transfer Co., 32 S.W.2d 449; Rue v. Eagle Picher Lead Co., 38 S.W.2d 487; Wolff v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 81 S.W.2d 323; Downey v. Kansas City Gas Co., 92 S.W.2d 580; Connelly v. Hunt Furniture Co., 240 N.Y. 83; Adams v. Acme White Lead Works, 182 Mich. 157; Peru Plow Co. v. Industrial Comm., 311 Ill. 216; Industrial Comm. v. Cross, 104 Ohio St. 561; Caldwell v. Travelers Ins. Co., 267 S.W. 907; Williams v. Guest, 18 B. W. C. C. 535; Tintic Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 60 Utah 14; Nightingale v. Biffin, 18 B. C. C. C. 358; Lovell v. Williams Bros., 50 S.W.2d 710; Moore v. U.S. Motor Truck Co., 142 N.E. 19, 80 Ind.App. 668; Mouchline v. State Ins. Fund, 124 A. 168, 279 Pa. 524; Cambridge Mfg. Co. v. Johnson, 153 A. 283, 160 Md. 248; Gunter v. Sharp & Buhme, 151 A. 134, 159 Md. 438. (b) The burden of proof was upon plaintiff to establish that he sustained injuries by reason of accident during the period appellant's policies were in force. Plaintiff did not plead in the garnishment action, and competent evidence was not introduced, which tended in any way to show that plaintiff sustained injuries by reason of accident, but the evidence conclusively showed that the policies covered only injuries sustained by reason of accidents and that plaintiff did not sustain any injuries by reason of accident. Phillips v. Travelers Ins. Co., 288 Mo. 175, 231 S.W. 947; Dunn v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co., 197 Mo.App. 457, 196 S.W. 100; Freeman v. Loyal Pro. Ins. Co., 196 Mo.App. 383, 195 S.W. 545; 36 C. J. 1136, sec. 125. (c) Plaintiff obtained a judgment against assured on a petition based upon occupational disease which was peculiar or incident to the work or process carried on in plaintiff's employment, and the court erred in taking into consideration any testimony contrary to said petition of plaintiff. Such position of plaintiff as contained in the original petition became res adjudicata and plaintiff was estopped from asserting any position contrary thereto. Weil v. Poston, 77 Mo. 284; Knoop v. Kelsey, 14 S.W. 110, 102 Mo. 291; Ferguson v. Comfort, 184 S.W. 192, 194 Mo.App. 423; Creighton v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 66 S.W.2d 980; Roden v. Helm, 90 S.W. 798, 192 Mo. 71; Block v. Early, 106 S.W. 104, 208 Mo. 281; Weissenfels v. Cable, 106 S.W. 1028, 208 Mo. 515; Germo Mfg. Co. v. Coombs, 240 S.W. 872, 209 Mo.App. 651; Quigley v. King, 168 S.W. 285; Congregation B'Nai Abraham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899; Davis v. Johnson, 58 S.W.2d 746, 332 Mo. 417; Burns v. Ames Realty Co., 31 S.W.2d 274; Schell v. Ranson Coal & Grain Co., 79 S.W.2d 543; State ex rel. v. Webster Groves Sewer Dist., 37 S.W.2d 908; Fleming v. McMahon Contr. Corp., 45 S.W.2d 955; McKenzie v. United Rys. Co., 216 Mo. 1, 115 S.W. 13; Grott v. Johnson, Stevens & Shinkle Shoe Co., 2 S.W.2d 785; Stottle v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 18 S.W.2d 443; DeLorme v. St. L. Pub. Serv. Co., 61 S.W.2d 247; Kelley v. Briggs, 290 S.W. 105; Otrich v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 134 S.W. 664, 154 Mo.App. 420. (2) If plaintiff (respondent) made any submissible case for the jury (and garnishee [appellant] denies that plaintiff [respondent] made any such submissible case), then an issue for the jury was raised and the court below erred in rendering a peremptory instruction for plaintiff (respondent). Fernandez v. Ins. Co., 78 S.W.2d 526; Parker v. Railroad Co., 41 S.W.2d 386; DeLorme v. St. L. Pub. Serv. Co., 61 S.W.2d 247; State ex rel. v. Cox, 30 S.W.2d 462, 325 Mo. 901; Cluck v. Abe, 40 S.W.2d 558, 328 Mo. 81; Beasley v. Marsh, 40 S.W.2d 747; Parrent v. M. & O. Ry. Co., 70 S.W.2d 1068, 334 Mo. 1202; State ex rel. Himmelsbach v. Becker, 85 S.W.2d 420; Marsden v. Radford, 84 S.W.2d 947.

Douglas H. Jones and J. R. Vettori for respondent.

(1) The policy of insurance issued by appellant insured the employer against liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act and against all other liability, both at common law and under the statutes, for damages for personal injuries. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v. Mo. Engineering Co., 63 S.W.2d 196; Swanson v. Georgia Cas. Co., 315 Mo. 1007, 287 S.W. 462. (a) The language of Paragraph One (b) expressly covered the injuries sustained by respondent while engaged in his employment with the insured, and the language thereof was not restricted by the provisions of a subsequent Paragraph Seven. The word "accidents" used in the phrase "that the policy shall apply only to such injuries so sustained by reason of accidents," appearing in Paragraph Seven must be given its ordinary and usual meaning. Webster's New International Dictionary [2 Ed.]; New Century Dictionary; 1 Encyclopedia Brittanica, p. 92. (b) In determining the intent and meaning of a policy of insurance, emphasized words, appearing in the provisions thereof, are to be given more consideration than unemphasized words in determining such intent and meaning. (2) If the word "accidents" in Paragraph Seven was intended to limit the preceding insuring clauses, since Paragraph Seven comes as an after clause and would restrict the coverage already extended, it must be disregarded. Where coverage is extended under one provision of the policy, it cannot be taken away by a subsequent provision. Jackson v. Order of the United Commercial Travelers, 89 S.W.2d 540; Craine v. Physicians' Indemnity Co., 45 S.W.2d 908; Renn v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 83 Mo.App. 447; Howell v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 215 Mo.App. 692, 253 S.W. 413; Kurre v. American Indemnity Co., 17 S.W.2d 685; Drumm v. Ft. Dearborn Cas. Underwriters, 5 S.W.2d 648; Ashgrove & Co. v. Southern Surety Co., 225 Mo.App. 712, 39 S.W.2d 434; Graff v. Continental Ins. Co., 225 Mo.App. 85, 35 S.W.2d 926; Wehrhahn v. Ft. Dearborn Ins. Co., 1 S.W.2d 242; Cowell v. Employers' Indemnity Co., 326 Mo. 1103, 34 S.W.2d 705; Schott v. Continental Auto Ins. Underwriters, 326 Mo. 236, 31 S.W.2d 7; Brucker v. Georgia Cas. Co., 326 Mo. 856, 32 S.W.2d 1088; Goerss v. Southern Indemnity Co., 3 S.W.2d 272; State ex rel. Indemnity Co. v. Daues, 13 S.W.2d 1059; Ragsdale v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 229 Mo.App. 545, 80 S.W.2d 280; Miller v. Mut. Benefit Assn., 80 S.W.2d 201; Matthews v. Modern Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 326, 139 S.W. 151. (3) Any ambiguity between Paragraph Seven and Paragraph One (b) as to the coverage extended by the policy of insurance must be resolved in favor of the insured. It is well-settled law in Missouri that where the meaning of a policy provision is doubtful or susceptible of different constructions, the policy must be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. 32 C. J., pp. 1152, 1155, 1158, sec. 255, 266, 268; Henderson v. Mass. Bonding Co., 337 Mo. 1, 84 S.W.2d 925; Bank v. American Bonding Co., 89 S.W.2d 559; Matthews v. Modern Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 344, 139 S.W. 151; Dezell v. Fid. & Guar. Co., 176 Mo. 265, 75 S.W. 1102; Stewart v. N. A. Acc. Ins. Co., 33 S.W.2d 1007; Arms v. Faszholz, 32 S.W.2d 782; Renn v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 83 Mo.App. 447; Howell v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 215 Mo.App. 692, 253 S.W. 413. (4) If this court construes the insurance policy in question to cover only accidental injuries, the respondent must recover, since his injury was sustained accidentally. Respondent was injured as the result of the accidental contraction of lead poisoning. Rue v. Eagle Picher Lead Co., 225 Mo.App. 408, 38 S.W.2d 489; Rinehart v. Stamper Co., 227 Mo.App. 653, 55 S.W.2d 729; Guillod v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 224 Mo.App. 382, 18 S.W.2d 100; Lovell v. Williams Bros., Inc., 50 S.W.2d 713; Plank v. Brown Petroleum Co., 332 Mo. 1150, 61 S.W.2d 328; Langenecker v. St. L. Sulphur & Chemical Co., 65 S.W.2d 648; Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Baker, 76 S.W.2d 153; Moyer v. Orek Coal Co., 229 Mo.App. 811, 82 S.W.2d 924; Downey v. Kansas City Gas Co., 338 Mo. 803, 92 S.W.2d 580; Schulz v. A. P. Co., 331 Mo. 536, 56 S.W.2d 126; Layton v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 89 S.W.2d 576; Farmers v. Ry. Mail Assn., 227 Mo.App. 1082, 57 S.W.2d 744.

Boyle & Priest, Geo. T. Priest, Robt. E. Moloney and C. S. Cullenbine for National Pigments & Chemical Company amicus curiae.

Jacob M. Lashly for Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company amicus curiae.

Leahy, Walther, Hecker & Ely for Blanke-Baer Extract & Preserving Company amicus curiae.

Lewis, Rice, Tucker, Allen & Chubb for Beehler Steel Products Company amicus curiae.

Igoe Carroll & Keefe for Meier & Pohlmann Furniture Company amicus curiae.

Hays, C. J. Douglas, J., not sitting; Ellison, Frank and Gantt, JJ., concur; Leedy, J., dissents; Tipton, J., dissents in separate opinion to be filed.

OPINION

HAYS

This is a garnishment proceeding, instituted to collect a judgment of $ 15,000,...