Truck Ins. Exchange v. Rohde

• Decision Date: 08 November 1956
• Docket Number: No. 33404,33404
• Citation: 303 P.2d 659,55 A.L.R.2d 1288,49 Wn.2d 465
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: , 55 A.L.R.2d 1288 TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, an insurance association, Appellant, v. Roy ROHDE, a minor; Omega Mae Shaw; Priscilla Kathleen Knudeson; Leslie Davis Anderson; Blaine Hopp, Jr., as administrator of the estate of Lloyd Grant Knudeson, deceased; Blaine Hopp, Jr., as administrator of the estate of Robert Dean Shaw, deceased, Respondents.

Page 465

49 Wn.2d 465

303 P.2d 659, 55 A.L.R.2d 1288

TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, an insurance association, Appellant, v. Roy ROHDE, a minor; Omega Mae Shaw; Priscilla Kathleen Knudeson; Leslie Davis Anderson; Blaine Hopp, Jr., as administrator of the estate of Lloyd Grant Knudeson deceased; Blaine Hopp, Jr., as administrator of the estate of Robert Dean Shaw, deceased, Respondents.

No. 33404.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Nov. 8, 1956.

Powell & Loney, Kennewick, for appellant.

Clarke, Clarke & Albertson, Seattle, Watters & Donovan, New York City, amici curiae on behalf of casualty and surety companies.

Tonkoff, Holst & Hopp, Yakima, Ralph Armstrong, Longview, Paul R. Roesch, Walla Walla, for respondents.

OTT, Justice.

In this action, the Truck Insurance Exchange sought a declaratory judgment to determine the extent to which, by a contract of insurance, it had indemnified the named insured against liability to third persons, which contractual liability arose from the following stipulated facts:

An automobile owned by the defendant Roy Rohde was covered by the public liability insurance policy here in question. On May 3, 1953, at approximately 6:45 p. m., he was operating the automobile on a state highway. At that time, three motorcycles were approaching from the opposite direction, traveling on their own side of the highway at a speed of approximately fifty miles an hour, and about seventy- five feet apart in echelon formation. The first and second motorcycles each carried a driver and one other rider. The third motor-cycle carried only a driver.

As the motorcycles and the automobile converged, Roy Rohde, under circumstances admittedly amounting to negligence on his part, drove the automobile over the center line and collided with the first motorcycle at the left front fender of the automobile, whereupon the automobile turned counterclockwise, collided with the second motorcycle at the right front fender, turned further and came into collision with the third motorcycle on the right side near the rear of the automobile. While all vehicles were continuously in motion, the automobile and the three motorcycles collided in such a manner that disinterested witnesses heard three distinct 'thuds.'

Judgments which, in the aggregate, exceed fifty thousand dollars have been entered in favor of all of the motorcycle riders except one, and his action was pending when this appeal was perfected.

This action involves the construction of the provisions of an indemnity contract between the Truck Insurance Exchange and defendant Rohde. The portions of the contract material to a determination of the issues in this case are as follows:

(1) 'Coverage A--Bodily Injury Liability. To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person.'

(2) 'Coverage B--Property Damage Liability. 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.'

(3) The limits of liability for bodily injuries are '$20,000 each person $50,000 each occurrence.'

(4) Section No. 6 in the body of the policy provides, under the heading of 'Limits of Liability':

'The limit of bodily injury liability stated in the declarations as applicable to 'each person' is the limit of the Exchange's liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by one person in any one occurrence; the limit of such liability stated in the declarations as applicable to 'each occurrence' is, subject to the above provision respecting each person, the total limit of the Exchange's liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by two or more persons in any one occurrence. * * *

'The inclusion herein of more than one insured shall not operate to increase the limits of the Exchange's liability.'

(5) Endorsement ET-94, which listed the automobile driven by Roy Rohde on the day in question, provides, under 'Coverages': 'Bodily Injury Liability each person $20,000.00, each accident $50,000.00. Property Damage Liability each accident $5,000.00.' The last clause in this endorsement provides:

'Effective (nor prior to time applied for) on February 28, 1953, this endorsement, when countersigned, becomes part of the above numbered policy and supersedes and controls anything in the policy contrary hereto but is otherwise subject to the declarations, insuring agreements, exclusions and conditions thereof.'

In construing the contract of indemnity, the trial court concluded that there was an accident or an occurrence as each motorcycle collided with the automobile, and that there were three separate and distinct accidents or occurrences, to each of which the indemnity limits of the contract applied. Judgment was entered accordingly. The insurance company has appealed.

The words of the contract which are the basis of this litigation, and the meaning of which must be determined, are 'accident' and 'occurrence.' These words are not specifically defined in the contract. Since they are not so defined, we must determine their popular and ordinary meaning. Kane v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America, 1940, 3 Wash.2d 355, 100 P.2d 1036. To determine such meaning, we will resort to the definitions in Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed.), which are as follows:

An accident is '* * * an undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or unfortunate character; * * *'

An occurrence is 'Any incident or event, esp. one that happens without being designed or expected; * * *'

The first assignment of error is directed to the court's conclusion that the word 'accident,' as found in endorsement ET-94, is controlling. The endorsement specifically provides that the language in it supersedes and controls anything in the policy contrary thereto. The policy uses the word 'occurrence.' The endorsement uses the word 'accident.' We find no error in the trial court's determination that the word to be construed was 'accident.' However, in our opinion and for the purposes of this case, the terms, 'accident' and 'occurrence,' are synonymous.

A basic rule in the construction of contracts is that the intention of the parties must control. Silen v. Silen, 1954, 44 Wash.2d 884, 890, 271 P.2d 674. The intent of the parties must be ascertained by reading the contract as a whole. Johnston v. Maryland Casualty Co., 1945, 22 Wash.2d 305, 308, 155 P.2d 806.

When the insured solicited this contract of indemnity, he sought to accomplish two things: (1) Coverage for the wrongful acts for which he would be legally liable to third persons or, in other words, indemnity for his liability resulting from tort, and (2) a contract in which a fixed and definite sum of money would be paid by the insurer to the insured for the insured's liability to third persons resulting from such wrongful acts. In this instance, the insured selected a contract of indemnity, for a premium he was willing to pay, which provided an indemnity coverage of five thousand dollars maximum for all property damage, twenty thousand dollars maximum for each person injured, with fifty thousand dollars maximum for all persons injured in any one accident or occurrence. The contract establishes that the insurer intended to indemnify the insured in the above manner.

When, as a result of this accident, respondent Rohde's aggregate liability exceeded the limits of his contract of indemnity, a dispute arose between the insured and the insurer as to the scope and meaning of the terms, 'each accident' or 'each occurrence.'

The respondents contend that each impact was a separate accident, although they admit that the proximate cause of all three impacts was the single negligent act of the insured in driving his automobile on the wrong side of the highway, which proximate cause was continuous and uninterrupted in its effect while all of the vehicles continued in motion.

The appellant contends that, since there was a single, continuous, and uninterrupted act of negligence, there could be but a single accident or occurrence.

We first must determine from the indemnity contract whether or not it was contemplated that, in one occurrence or accident, more than one person could be injured or more than one vehicle or item of property could be damaged. The contract provides for '$20,000 each person,' with a maximum of fifty thousand dollars for all persons injured in any one accident or occurrence. This language of the contract indicates that the insured and the insurer contemplated injury to more than one person in a single accident or occurrence.

The contract further provides that the insurer will pay all sums, up to five thousand dollars, which the insured would become liable to pay as damages because of his wrongful acts resulting in injury to or destruction of property. This language indicates that the parties contemplated that more than one vehicle or more than one item of property might be damaged in a single occurrence, but that the limit of indemnity for the damage to or destruction of all property involved in a single accident or occurrence would be five thousand dollars. If, within the confines of a single accident or occurrence, damage to more than one item of property was contemplated, more than one impact also was contemplated, either directly with the insured's automobile or with another object, the proximate cause of either impact being the negligence of the insured. It follows that, at the time the insured and the insurer entered into the contract...