St. Louis Architectural Iron Co. v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 8710.
Decision Date | 28 April 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 8710.,8710. |
Citation | 40 F.2d 344 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS ARCHITECTURAL IRON CO. v. NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John P. Leahy, of St. Louis, Mo. (James J. O'Donohoe, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Raymond J. Lahey, of St. Louis, Mo. (James C. Jones, Lon O. Hocker, Frank H. Sullivan, William O. Reeder, and James C. Jones, Jr., all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BOOTH and GARDNER, Circuit Judges, and SANBORN, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment after verdict in favor of appellee, defendant below. The action was brought on a policy of indemnity insurance issued by appellee to appellant in the sum of $10,000, covering "loss from the liability imposed by law upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries accidentally suffered or alleged to have been suffered while this Policy is in force, including death resulting at any time therefrom, by any employe or employees of the Assured, except such as are excluded by Condition `A' hereof, while at the places described in the Schedule, in and during the prosecution of the work described in said Schedule, including drivers of teams and their helpers wherever employed in the service of the Assured, subject to the following conditions." The period during which the policy was in force was from October 11, 1922, to October 11, 1923.
May 3, 1923, George Timmerman, while in the employ of appellant, sustained personal injuries. He brought suit against appellant in the state court and recovered a verdict and judgment for $15,000, which with interest and costs amounted to $18,126. This sum was paid by appellant. The appellee refusing to make payment under the indemnity policy, the present action was brought.
The defense set up by appellee in its answer was that it was not liable under the policy by reason of nonfulfillment by appellant of condition B contained in the policy, and which read as follows:
The appellee also alleged in its answer that, in the action brought by Timmerman against appellant, the appellee had assumed the defense at the request of appellant, but with the written agreement with appellant that by so doing appellee should not be considered to have waived its right to assert in any action brought against it on the indemnity policy that there was no liability on the part of appellee thereunder, because of the failure of appellant to give immediate written notice to appellee of the accident and injuries.
Appellant in its reply alleged that appellee by taking full charge of the defense of the action brought in the state court by Timmerman, and by preventing appellant from interfering with any negotiations for settlement of the Timmerman case, and by preventing appellant from having its own counsel take part in the trial of said case, had waived its right, if such right existed, to insist on the defense of nonfulfillment of condition B; and also waived any rights its might have under the nonwaiver agreement.
On the trial, the main issue of fact was as to the time within which the notice of the accident was sent to appellee. There was evidence tending to show that the notice was mailed to appellee by Zeis, foreman of appellant, under whom Timmerman worked, within ten days or two weeks after the date of the accident. There was also evidence tending to show that no notice of the accident was received by appellee until September 5, 1923 — some four months after the accident — when the report made by Zeis was received through the mail. No proof was offered as to the allegations of the reply, other than that appellee took and retained charge of the defense of the Timmerman action until after entry of judgment therein.
On this state of the evidence the court instructed the jury as follows:
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, appellee here.
The main points raised by the assignments of error and relied upon in this court relate to the charges of the court above quoted, and to the refusal to give the following requested charge, viz.:
"The Court, at the request of plaintiff, charges you that in arriving at your verdict you should not take into consideration whether or not plaintiff gave defendant notice of injuries to George Timmerman, but you should disregard the same."
One contention of appellant is that the liability of the appellee under the indemnity insurance policy was not affected by the failure to give immediate written notice of the accident in accordance with condition B, because there was no provision of forfeiture in the policy for failure to give the notice. We are of opinion, however, that such a forfeiture provision is not necessary where, as in the case at bar, the language of the contract between the parties plainly makes the giving of the notice of the accident a condition precedent to liability on the part of the insurance company.
The case of National Paper Box Co. v. Insurance Co., 170 Mo. App. 361, 156 S. W. 740, involved facts similar in substance to the case at bar. The provision for notice was held to be a condition precedent to liability under the policy.
In U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Carmichael Co., 195 Mo. App. 93, 190 S. W. 648, which involved an action for unpaid premiums on two policies of indemnity insurance, defendant had refused to pay the premiums for the alleged reason that the company had refused to defend a certain suit covered by the policy, and set up a counterclaim for the amount paid on account of the suit. Plaintiff claimed that the provision in regard to notice (similar to that in the case at bar) was not complied with, and that therefore defendant had lost its right to be indemnified. Defendant contended that it had not lost such right, as there was no provision in the policy for forfeiture. The court said (page 97 of 195 Mo. App., 190 S. W. 648, 649):
In Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. v. Johnston (C. C. A.) 247 F. 65, involving an accident insurance policy which contained a provision for notice reading as follows: "Written notice must be given the company * * * of any accident or injury for which a claim is to be made, * * * within twenty-one days from the date of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker to Use of Foristel v. American Auto. Ins. Co.
... ... Louis April 3, 1934 ... Motion ... 105, 106; St ... Louis Architectural Iron Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty ... Co., 40 ... v. New Amsterdam Cas ... Co., 40 F.2d 334, l. c. 347, 348; ... ...
-
Hablutzel v. Home Life Ins. Co. of New York
... ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. M ... Hartmann , Judge ... Assn., 142 Mo.App. 552; Hayes v. Cont. Cas ... Co., 98 Mo.App. 410, 72 S.W. 135; ... 281, 165 N.E. 295; St. Louis ... Architectural Iron Co. v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 40 ... F.2d ... ...
-
John Houran, Jr., Admr. v. the Preferred Accident Insurance Company of New York
... ... Standard ... Accident Ins. Co. , 27 F.2d 859, 861; Metropolitan ... Casualty ... 922, 923; ... Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. , 247 ... N.Y. 271, 275, 160 N.E ... Boston ... Elevated Ry. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co. , 232 ... Mass. 246, 122 N.E. 196, 198 ... 269, 181 A. 436, 442; ... St. Louis Arch. Iron Co. v. New Amsterdam ... Casualty ... ...
-
Henderson v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co.
...268, 100 A. 572, 576; Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Perkins, 169 Md. 269, 181 A. 436, 442; St. Louis Architectural Iron Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 8 Cir. (Mo.), 40 F.2d 344, 347, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 882, 51 S.Ct. 86, 75 L.Ed. 778; Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Myers, 7 ......