Stahl v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York

• Decision Date: 31 October 1933
• Docket Number: No. 2983.,2983.
• Citation: 4 F. Supp. 777
• Parties: STAHL et al. v. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

4 F. Supp. 777

STAHL et al. v. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

No. 2983.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

October 31, 1933.

A. Francis Gilbert, of Middleburg, Pa., and James F. McClure, of Lewisburg, Pa., for plaintiff.

Mortimer C. Rhone, of Williamsport, Pa., for defendant.

JOHNSON, District Judge.

The plaintiffs brought this action of assumpsit on a policy of accident insurance issued to John C. Stahl by the defendant company. By the terms of the policy the deceased was insured in the principal sum of $15,000 in the event of his death. The issue raised was submitted to a jury and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $16,417.50, the principal sum of the policy plus interest. The defendant has filed a motion for a new trial and has assigned therefor a number of reasons.

From the evidence produced at the trial, it appears when John C. Stahl applied for the policy he stated in his application in response to questions relating to his occupation as follows: "Owner, National Lime Stone Quarries, * * * 5. My occupation is Proprietor, Inspecting Only, Not superintending. 6. The Duties of my occupation are fully described as follows: Proprietor, Inspecting Only, not Superintending."

The standard provisions of the policy contain the following: "Change of Occupation. 1. This policy includes the endorsements and attached papers, if any, and contains the entire contract of insurance except as it may be modified by the company's classification of risks and premium rates in the event that the Insured is injured after having changed his occupation to one classified by the Company as more hazardous than that stated in the policy, or while he is doing any act or thing pertaining to any occupation so classified, except ordinary duties about his residence or while engaged in recreation, in which event the company will pay only such portion of the indemnities provided in the policy as the premium paid would have purchased at the rate but within the limits so fixed by the Company for such more hazardous occupation."

The testimony is somewhat conflicting as to what actual work the deceased was doing when he received the injury which caused his death, but this much seems clear: Two laborers at the stone quarry, owned by the insured, were underneath the stone crusher replacing one of the toggle plates, which weighed about 600 pounds, by means of a chain hoist. The insured was underneath the stone crusher with the two laborers and was either actually assisting in the work or was inspecting the work of the other men. After the insured had been so engaged for about an hour and a half, the other toggle plate was dislodged in some unknown manner and fell a distance of over six feet, striking the insured and causing injuries to him from which he died.

Throughout the trial of the case, the defendant contended, and now urges in its motion for a new trial, that under the terms of the policy relative to change of occupation, which is quoted above, the defendant, if it is liable at all, is not liable for the full amount of the policy because at the time of the accident the insured had changed his occupation to one classified by the defendant company as more hazardous than that stated in the policy, or in any event the insured was doing an act or thing pertaining to an occupation which was classified as being more hazardous.

The defendant had on file in the proper office of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, when the policy was issued and during the life of the policy, its Manual of Rates and Instructions, Description of policy Forms, Accident and Health Department. The defendant contends that the insured was performing the work of an ordinary quarryman when he was injured and under such classification the limit of risk to the defendant company was only $1,500.

The court, following the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in the case of Gotfredson v. German Commercial Accident Company, 218 F. 582, L. R. A. 1915D, 312, submitted the case to the jury under instructions that if the act or thing which the deceased was doing at the time the accident occurred was other than that pertaining to his duties as inspector or owner of the quarry and that such act was merely casual or temporary, and not habitual, then the jury should find for the plaintiffs in the full amount of the policy, but if the jury found that the deceased had habitually and continuously performed the acts, which caused his injury and thereby changed his occupation to one classified by the company as a more hazardous risk, then the jury should find that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive such an...