Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Alexander

Decision Date25 April 1939
Docket NumberNo. 8990.,8990.
Citation103 F.2d 500
PartiesSTANDARD ACC. INS. CO. v. ALEXANDER, Inc., et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Philip L. Kelton and J. W. Gormley, both of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

J. G. Harrell, of Breckenridge, Tex., and Stanley Boykin and George F. Seideman, both of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellees.

Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

Standard Accident Insurance Company, a Michigan corporation, issued its policy of public liability insurance to Alexander, Inc., a Texas corporation. On April 27, 1938, Al J. Everts filed suit in the District Court of Stephens County, Texas, claiming damages from the insured for injuries alleged to have been received by him in August, 1937, when he was on the premises of Alexander, Inc. Immediately following service of citation, Alexander, Inc., called upon the insurance company to defend the damage suit.

The insurance company contended that it was under no obligation to defend the suit or pay any judgment that might be recovered. This for the reason that the terms of the policy provided for immediate written notice in the event of accident, and that it did not receive notice until after Everts had filed his suit for damages some eight months after the accident occurred. It thereupon filed its complaint in the United States District Court seeking a declaration of its rights and liabilities under the policy with respect to the claim of Everts. From a judgment adverse to its contention, the insurance company brings this appeal.

Alexander, Inc., owned an ice and cold storage plant in Breckenridge, Texas, and rented space in cold storage vaults to local merchants. Al J. Everts was an employee of a firm that rented cold storage space and it was part of his duties to place fruits and vegetables in the cold storage vault and remove them as needed to replenish his employer's stock. He testified that on or about August 10, 1937, he went to the vault at the plant and that while there engaged in putting watermelons in storage he fell and skinned his knee; that he went to the man in charge of the front dock and had the cut place painted with mercurochrome. The injury appeared trivial at the time and Everts said it amounted to nothing, and returned to his work.

The trial court found that Everts never reported the accident to any employee of Alexander, Inc., except the man on the front dock who administered first aid; that Everts made no claim until he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Navigazione Alta Italia v. Columbia Casualty Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 21, 1958
    ...and the authorities cited by appellant, such as Sanderson v. Postal Life Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 87 F.2d 58 and Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 500, are wholly inapposite, indeed unrelated to the facts of this case. Without exception the cases it relies on deal with sit......
  • OFFSHORE LOGISTICS, ETC. v. ARKWRIGHT-BOSTON MFR'S
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • March 8, 1979
    ...102, 106 (5th Cir. 1961) ("transmission within a reasonable time considering all of the circumstances"); Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Alexander, Inc., 103 F.2d 500, 501 (5th Cir. 1939) ("within a reasonable time"); Reagan v. Mid-Continent Underwriters, Inc., 150 So.2d 75, 79 (4th Cir.), wr......
  • Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • July 13, 1960
    ...121 S.E. 507; Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. v. Thornton, 4 Cir., 244 F.2d 823; Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 500; Zauderer v. Continental Casualty Co., 2 Cir., 140 F.2d 211; cf. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Cassinelli, 6......
  • Greyhound Corp. v. Excess Insurance Co. of America
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 25, 1956
    ...held to mean that the notice must be given within a reasonable time. 29 Am.Jur. 827, et seq. Insurance § 1104; Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 5 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 500; Le Sage v. Utilities Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 536. It has been said that "immediate", in provisions in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT