State ex rel. Mills Lumber Co. v. Trimble

• Decision Date: 21 May 1931
• Docket Number: 30576
• Parties: The State ex rel. Mills Lumber Company v. Francis H. Trimble et al., Judges of Kansas City Court of Appeals
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

39 S.W.2d 355

327 Mo. 899

The State ex rel. Mills Lumber Company v. Francis H. Trimble et al., Judges of Kansas City Court of Appeals

No. 30576

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 21, 1931

Rehearing Overruled May 21, 1931.

Certiorari to Kansas City Court of Appeals; Opinion filed at October Term, 1930, March 31, 1931; motion for rehearing overruled at April Term, May 21, 1931.

Opinion and judgment quashed.

John C Mills, John Campbell and M. D. Campbell for relator.

(1) The opinion of the Court of Appeals violates legal principles and is in conflict with the doctrine announced by this court in the following cases to the effect that insurance policies will be strictly construed against the insurer. State ex rel. v. Allen, 305 Mo. 615; Matthews v. Modern Woodmen, 236 Mo. 326; Block v. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 316 Mo. 301; Dezell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 176 Mo. 253; Renshaw v. Mo. State Co., 103 Mo. 605. The precise question presented to the Court of Appeals was, did the accident sued for by Rosie Cramer occur at a place covered by the policy. The accident occurred at La Plata, Missouri, which is the only location named in the warranties. The Court of Appeals held that the words in the endorsement "location or premises" mean only the real estate occupied by respondent as a lumber yard. Thus the opinion gives no effect or meaning to the first paragraph of the policy, that indemnity is granted against claims arising at the location named in the warranties or elsewhere, nor to the second endorsement which does not use the word "premises" but cover claims arising at the location named in the warranties. The only location named in the warranties is La Plata, Missouri, and there are no other limiting words. (2) The opinion of the Court of Appeals notwithstanding there are three inconsistent and contradictory provisions in the policy, construed the policy most favorably to the insurance company, resolving every doubt in its favor. Said holding is in conflict with the decisions of this court. Authorities, supra; Also Renn v. Supreme Lodge, 83 Mo.App. 447. The doctrine announced in the Renn case, supra, is approved by this court. State ex rel. v. Allen, 305 Mo. 607. (3) The opinion of the Court of Appeals is that because La Plata is a small town it was sufficient to name that city in the warranties without designating street or number and the statement in the warranties that the location was La Plata, Missouri, means only the real estate actually occupied as a lumber yard. Such holding is in conflict with the principles announced by this Court in the foregoing cases and in Dezell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 176 Mo. 253, 266, 283. The doctrine there announced is that if the insurer desires such a narrow construction to be given the insurance contract it should so express it in "such unequivocal and plain words that there could be no misunderstanding its meaning." (4) The Court of Appeals' opinion conflicts with the doctrine announced by this court that conditions and provisions in policies are to be construed strictly against the company, as they tend to narrow the range and limit the force of the principal obligation. Conditions providing for disabilities and forfeitures are to receive, where the intent is doubtful, a strict construction against those for whose benefit they are introduced.

Philip J. Fowler and Hunter & Chamier for respondents.

(1) The sole question which this court may determine in the present proceeding is whether respondents' opinion must be quashed for the reason that the opinion contravenes a prior and controlling decision of this court as regards any general principle of law announced by this court, or which has ruled an identical question of law, or which has been ruled upon a like or similar state of facts. State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 287 Mo. 169, 229 S.W. 1057; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 289 Mo. 506, 233 S.W. 483; State ex rel. v. Allen, 294 Mo. 214, 242 S.W. 77; State ex rel. v. Trimble (Mo. Sup.), 250 S.W. 384; State ex rel. Ins. Co. v. Trimble, 20 S.W.2d 48; State ex rel. Automobile Co. v. Daues, 19 S.W.2d 700; State ex rel. Noe v. Cox, 19 S.W.2d 695; State ex rel. Weisheyer v. Haid, 26 S.W.2d 939. (2) It is not the province of this court to review alleged error by the Court of Appeals in applying rules of law to the facts stated in its opinion; and this court is not authorized to quash the opinion because it might conclude that the Court of Appeals has not correctly decided the case. State ex rel. Theological Seminary v. Ellison, 216 S.W. 967; State ex rel. Calhoun v. Reynolds, 289 Mo. 506; State ex rel. Transfer Co. v. Trimble, 250 S.W. 396; State ex rel. Benefit Assn. v. Cox, 9 S.W.2d 956; State ex rel. National Bank v. Ellison, 266 Mo. 423, 181 S.W. 998; State ex rel. Railway Co. v. Ellison, 204 S.W. 396; State ex rel. Weisheyer v. Haid, 26 S.W.2d 939; State ex rel. Ins. Co. v. Trimble, 20 S.W.2d 46. (3) "This court has never construed such provisions as are found in this contract with reference to the single question here involved. It was, therefore, an open question for the Court of Appeals to determine. Whether such court determined it right or wrong is immaterial here." State ex rel. Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 305 Mo. 607. (4) "A contract of insurance differs in no respect from other contracts, as to the rules for their interpretation. The object is, as in all contracts, to ascertain the meaning and intention of the parties, to be gathered from the whole instrument, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, in contemplation of which they are supposed to contract. Words should be given their ordinary signification in view of the subject of the contract." Renshaw v. Ins. Co., 103 Mo. 604.

OPINION

Ragland, J.

This case comes to the writer for an opinion on reassignment. It is an original proceeding in certiorari wherein relator seeks to have quashed, on the ground of conflict, the opinion and judgment of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in the case of Mills Lumber Company, respondent, v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, appellant, recently before that court on appeal. The facts disclosed by the opinion, from which we shall quote in part, are as follows:

"This is an action on an insurance policy. . . .

"Rosie Cramer brought suit against the Mills Lumber Company, and in her petition alleged that she was the wife of Abe Cramer, deceased; that her husband was an employee of the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, which company was engaged in the erection of an elevated steel tank at La Plata, Missouri; that it was necessary to construct a scaffold under the base of the tank at a height of approximately 125 feet above the ground; that a short time prior to his injury plaintiff's husband went to the defendant at its office in La Plata, Missouri, and explained to the defendant and its agents the purpose and plans for building such scaffold and the use which was to be made of it, and that plaintiff's husband and others would go upon the scaffold far above the ground, and work thereon, that fresh, clear, sound lumber was required and needed to safely support the weight of the workmen and their tools and equipment in carrying on their work; that defendant undertook to furnish such lumber, but carelessly and negligently furnished defective, unsound, and old deteriorated lumber, which was wholly unfit for the use and purposes intended; that the scaffold broke and gave way, due to the defective and inferior quality of the lumber, and as a result the plaintiff's husband was killed. Plaintiff prayed judgment for the sum of $ 10,000. . . .

"Mills Lumber Company gave notice of the suit to the insurance company and called upon it to defend. It refused to do so. . . . Mills Lumber Company then successfully defended the suit and thereafter instituted this action to recover the amount expended in the defense of the suit for wrongful death."

The Insurance Company denied liability on the ground that the casualty did not occur on the premises where the assured conducted its business in La Plata, Missouri. Whether the death, which was suffered at La Plata but not at the premises of the assured, was a casualty covered by the policy called for a construction of certain of its terms and provisions. The rulings of the Court of Appeals in connection with its interpretation of such terms and provisions are the ones of which complaint is made in this proceeding.

The pertinent provisions of the policy in question are as follows: "Aetna Life Insurance Company, Accident and Liability Department, Manufacturers Public Liability policy.

"Insuring Clause.

"IN CONSIDERATION of the premiums provided, the Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut (called the Company).

"Does Hereby Agree to Indemnify the Assured described in the Warranties hereof, within the amounts as expressed herein, Against Loss and/or expense Arising or Resulting from Claims Upon the Assured for Damages on account of bodily injuries and/or death accidentally suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by any person or persons not employed by the Assured, by reason of the business described and conducted at the location named in said Warranties, whether said injuries and/or death are accidentally suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, at the locations named or elsewhere, save and except claims arising by reason of: [four exceptions are here set out.]

"Subject to all agreements and conditions hereof, claims are covered whenever arising, on account of accidents or alleged accidents occurring within the Policy period stated herein. [Here follow a series of separately stated conditions.]" Condition "M" is as follows:

"No condition or provision of this policy shall be waived or altered except by written endorsement attached hereto and...