Travelers Indem. Co. v. New England Box Co.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1960 |
| Citation | 102 N.H. 380,157 A.2d 765 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY v. NEW ENGLAND BOX COMPANY et al. |
Burns, Bryant & Hinchey & Lawrence E. Spellman, Dover, for plaintiff.
Cooper, Hall & Cooper, Rochester, Richard F. Cooper, Rochester, for defendant New England Box Co.
John J. Zimmerman, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Burnham B. Davis, Conway, for the towns of Freedom and Madison.
Sheehan, Phinney, Bass, Green & Bergevin, Manchester, for Carroll County Y. M. C. A., William B. and Helen Clark, and George A. and Beverly M. Hewitt.
Errol S. Hall, Farmington, for Charles DiPrizio.
The policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff to New England Box Company under date of November 11, 1956 insures the company with respect to 'Coverage A' for 'bodily injury liability' within limits described in the declarations as $100,000 for 'each person,' $300,000 for 'each accident' and $300,000 for 'aggregate products'; and with respect to 'Coverage B' for 'property damage liability' within limits of $25,000 for 'each accident' and $50,000 for each of 'aggregate operations,' 'aggregate protective,' 'aggregate products,' and 'aggregate contractual.'
The declarations further specify the 'advance premiums' payable for each of coverages A and B, with respect to a hzard designated 'Premises-Operations,' as applied to specified locations including 'Madison, Carroll Co., N. H.'
By 'Coverage B' of the policy, the insurer undertakes 'to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof, caused by accident.' This undertaking is qualified by certain 'Exclusions,' none of which is claimed to be applicable here. Under the head of 'Conditions' appear certain definitions, including a definition of the term 'products hazard,' which is not material to the coverage applicable to the pending action.
Under the head of 'Limits of Liability, Coverage B' appears the following: 'The limit of property damage liability stated in the declarations as applicable to 'each accident' is the total limit of the company's liability for all damages arising out of injury to or destruction of all property of one or more persons or organizations, including the loss of use thereof, as the result of any one accident.
'Subject to the limit of liability with respect to 'each accident' the limit of property damage liability stated in the declarations as 'aggregate operations' is the total limit of the company's liability for all damages arising out of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof, caused by the ownership, maintenance or use of premises or [by?] operations rated on a remuneration premium basis or by contractor's equipment rated on a receipts premium basis * * *.
'The limits of property damage liability stated in the declarations as 'aggregate operations, aggregate protective' and 'aggregate contractual' apply separately to each project with respect to operations being performed away from the premises owned by or rented to the named insured.'
The plaintiff claims that the limit of its liability under the policy for all property damage occasioned by the fire or fires of April 21, 1957 is the limit of '$25,000 each accident' specified in the declarations. The defendants on the other hand contend that the damage suffered by each of them was a separate 'accident,' and that the applicable limit is '$50,000 aggregate operations' as specified by the declarations.
The issue presented is not readily determinable from an examination of the policy, which must be considered as a whole. The limits of liability for bodily injury in part follow a familiar form of '$100,000 each person' and '$300,000 each accident.' See 8 Appleman, Insurance Law 296. These limits are followed by a third less familiar limit of '$300,000 aggregate products.' See 'Products Liability Insurance,' 1957 Wis.L.Rev. 429. By endorsement, relating solely to coverage A against bodily injury liability, the term 'accident' was amended to 'occurrence,' and the latter word defined therein to include either 'accident' or 'continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which result in bodily injury.' The endorsement further provides that 'all damages arising out of such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing at or emanating from each premises location shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence.' Further provisions of the policy itself, under the heading of 'Conditions,' which bear upon the limit of '$300,000 aggregate products' are as follows:
Thus it seems apparent that in case of accidental bodily injury to several persons, suffered as a result of operations conducted or products prepared by the insured, the applicable limits of coverage under the policy would be $100,000 as to any one person or claimant, and $300,000 as to any one accident, or occurrence if more than one person should be injured thereby. And in the event of injury as the result of products obtained from the insured, liability for bodily injury suffered by several persons on account of 'one lot of goods' would be limited to '$300,000 each accident' because under the provision last quoted all damages are to 'be considered as arising out of one accident.'
It is also apparent that in a case where the insurer paid a total of $300,000 in settlement of such claims for bodily injury the limit of liability for 'aggregate products' would also be reached, since it was the same as the limit for 'each accident.' By the same token under the 'Condition' last quoted, the plaintiff's liability for property damage arising out of one lot of products would be 'considered as arising out of one accident' and hence governed by the '$25,000 each accident' limit under coverage B, rather than the '$50,000 aggregate products' limit thereunder.
Interpretation of the policy limits applicable to Coverage B arising out of the 'premises-operations' hazard appears to be somewhat less plain. See 5 Couch on Insurance, Supp. s. 1189-1. It seems significant however that as to Coverage B, while no separate limit of liability as to 'each person' is stated comparable to such a limit imposed as to Coverage A, as to each type of coverage there is a limit for 'each accident.' Since in the case of bodily injury liability, the limit applicable to 'each accident' was evidently intended to apply to liability arising out of the claims of several persons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
...219 Ga. 6, 131 S.E.2d 534 (1963); Oda v. Highway Ins. Co., 44 Ill.App.2d 235, 194 N.E.2d 489 (1963); Travelers Indem. Co. v. New Eng. Box Co., 102 N.H. 380, 157 A.2d 765 (1960); Lumbermen's Mut. Cas.Co. v. McCarthy, 90 N.H. 320, 8 A.2d 750 (1939). See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Certain Underw......
-
Pareti v. Sentry Indem. Co.
...235, 194 N.E.2d 489 (1963); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mead Corp., 219 Ga. 6, 131 S.E.2d 534 (1963); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. New England Box Co., 102 N.H. 380, 157 A.2d 765 (1960); Denham v. LaSalle-Madison Hotel Co., 168 F.2d 576 (7th Cir.1948), cert. denied 335 U.S. 871, 69 S.Ct. 167, ......
-
Greaves v. State Farm Ins. Co.
...however, cannot escape the logic and result of the cases that they attempt to distinguish. In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. New England Box Co., 102 N.H. 380, 157 A.2d 765 (1960), the New Hampshire Supreme Court determined that a single fire that resulted in multiple instances of property dama......
-
Secura Ins. v. Lyme St. Croix Forest Co.
...a fire damaging eleven properties that began with an overturned pot of tar was a single occurrence); Travelers Indem. Co. v. New England Box Co., 102 N.H. 380, 157 A.2d 765, 769 (1960) (concluding that a fire spreading to several properties is a single occurrence because "reasonable persons......
-
Chapter Three
...(App. 3d Dist. 1988); Kansas Fire & Cas. Co. v. Koelling, 729 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987); Travelers Indem. Co. v. New England Box Co., 102 N.H. 380, 157 A.2d 765 (N.H. 1960); Doria v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 210 N.J. Super. 67, 509 A.2d 220 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1986); Truck Ins. Exchange ......