Tyler v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Civ. A. No. 74-L-138-S.

Decision Date25 September 1974
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 74-L-138-S.
Citation381 F. Supp. 1356
PartiesMrs. Net V. TYLER, as Admx. of the Estate of Cecil H. Tyler, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., a corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Roscoe B. Hogan, of Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff.

Robert D. Norman, Norman & Fitzpatrick, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LYNNE, Senior District Judge.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This suit was instituted by plaintiff, Mrs. Net Tyler, an Alabama resident, against defendant, Insurance Company of North America ("INA"), to recover $50,000.00 under a limited coverage policy issued by defendant to plaintiff's deceased husband, Cecil H. Tyler. Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1970).

Both plaintiff and defendant have moved for summary judgment, and the Court heard oral argument in the case on September 6, 1974.

There is little dispute as to the facts. Both parties agreed to submit the case for judgment on the basis of the pleadings and the deposition of Mr. Harold E. Lutz, who was with the decedent when the accident occurred.

Early on the morning of June 18, 1973, the seventy-nine year old Mr. Tyler and his son-in-law, Mr. Lutz, embarked on a fishing trip to the Holt Lock and Dam. They went in Mr. Lutz's car, to which was attached a boat trailer, which carried a 17½ foot, flat-bottomed fishing boat. When they arrived at the launching ramp, Mr. Lutz positioned the car and trailer on the ramp about fifteen to twenty feet from the water. As was their custom, Mr. Tyler then got out of the car and proceeded to undo the boat and get it ready to launch. Part of his activity during this phase of the launching was to loosen and hold the "floating rope," about thirty feet long, while the trailer was backed into the water. He would then hold this floating rope to secure the now-free boat, while Mr. Lutz drove the car and trailer forty to sixty feet away to park. At this point, the rope in Mr. Tyler's hand was attached to the boat, which was still on the trailer, which in turn was attached to the car.

All went routinely until Mr. Lutz, mistakenly thinking the boat had floated free, drove up the ramp and parked the vehicle. While locking the passenger side door, he heard Mr. Tyler's pleas for help, and, looking back through the passenger-side window, saw Mr. Tyler lying on the ground, seriously injured. He managed to get Mr. Tyler to the hospital. There he learned from Mr. Tyler that the boat had not floated free and that the deceased, assuming his son-in-law would pull forward and back in again, had continued to hold the floating rope. As soon as he saw that Mr. Lutz planned to park the car, he dropped the rope, not realizing that he was standing on it. The force of the car pulling forward looped the rope around the instep of Mr. Tyler's left foot, resulting in his being pulled off his feet and dragged along behind the car and trailer. Mr. Lutz was oblivious to this series of events because the windows of his car were closed, and the back window was fogged.

On July 11, 1973, Mr. Tyler died from the injuries sustained in this accident.

On February 13, 1974, plaintiff filed this suit, seeking to recover under the following language of an insurance agreement between Mr. Tyler and the defendant:

. . . the company insures the insured . . . against loss of life . . . resulting . . . from bodily injuries . . . caused by accident occurring while this policy is in force and arising out of the following specific hazards:
(c) driving . . . or riding in or on, boarding or alighting from
(1) any pleasure type automobile . . . or
(d) being struck by any automobile, truck or public conveyance.
II. ISSUE

Simply stated, then, the sole issue to be resolved on this motion is whether decedent's death as a result of being pulled off his feet and dragged by a rope connected indirectly to an automobile may be said to have arisen out of alighting from an automobile and/or out of being struck by an automobile.

III. CONCLUSION

It is concluded herein that the plaintiff may not recover under the above clauses, since the language, given a natural and unstrained reading, cannot be stretched to cover the factual situation presented.

IV. DISCUSSION

It is elementary that an insurance contract will be construed most strongly against the party who framed it. Life Insurance Co. of Georgia v. Miller, 292 Ala. 525, 296 So.2d 900, 905 (1974). This rule of construction, however, cannot be used either to create ambiguity where there is none or to make a new and different contract for the parties. See, e. g., Lingo v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 32 Ala.App. 525, 27 So.2d 697, cert. denied, 248 Ala. 367, 27 So.2d 700 (1946).

A. The plaintiff makes a valiant effort to unlock the ambiguities latent in the phrase "arising out of."1 She cites three Workmen's Compensation cases as supporting a reading of the phrase which would allow coverage if Mr. Tyler's death "had any connection with" emphasis plaintiff's either of the two hazards named in the contract: Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 104 Kan. 432, 179 P. 372, 6 A.L.R. 1145 (1919); Trudenich v. Marshall, 34 F. Supp. 486 (W.D.Wash.1940); and Amicucci v. Ford Motor Co., 308 Mich. 151, 13 N.W.2d 241 (1944). Such a broad reading, it is clear, would expand the ordinary meaning of the specific hazards described in the contract. In Thomas, however, the court read the phrase to require that the injury be a direct and natural result of a risk reasonably incident to the employee's work; in Trudenich, the court required a causal relation and denied recovery where the injury was merely coincidental; and in Amicucci, the court likewise required a causal connection between the injury and the employee's work, noting that the phrase would not allow recovery on a risk disassociated from the work. These cases will not support plaintiff's broad construction.

Some courts have read "arising out of" seemingly as broadly as plaintiff contends, holding that it is much broader than "caused by," and can be said to mean "originating from," "having its origin in," "growing out of," or "flowing from," or, in short, "incident to" or "having connection with" the specified automobile hazards. See, e. g., Schmidt v. Utilities Ins. Co., 353 Mo. 213, 182 S. W.2d 181 (1944); see, generally, Annot. Automobile Liability Insurance: What are Accidents or Injuries "Arising Out of Ownership, Maintenance, or Use" of Insured Vehicle, 89 A.L.R.2d 150 (1963).

The Alabama courts, however, have not adopted such a broad reading. In American Liberty Ins. Co. v. Soules, 288 Ala. 163, 258 So.2d 872 (1972), one Heth, while moving his pistol from under him, accidentally shot his fiancee, while they were sitting in a parked car. When she sought coverage under a homeowner's policy which covered an "accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use * * * of the owned automobile," the court denied her effort, defining "arising out of" as follows:

The phrase would denote the use of the insured's automobile as the cause of the accident, and in order to satisfy this requisite the rational mind must be able to trace the resultant injury to a proximate cause set in motion by the use of the automobile and not otherwise. 258 So.2d at 875.
The Court should adopt Alabama's gloss for the phrase "arising out of."2 Paraphrasing the language from Soules, it is clear that the "rational mind must be able to trace the resultant injury to a proximate cause set in motion by alighting from the auto and not otherwise."

B. Using her broad construction of "arising out of" as her base, plaintiff next contends that Mr. Tyler's accident "arose out of his `alighting from' the automobile." emphasis plaintiff's To accomplish this remarkable linguistic feat, she ingeniously analyzes the activities at the boat landing as a process with two phases: (1) alighting from the car, and (2) embarking in the boat upon the fishing trip. She continues:

The first phase must certainly include the parking of the vehicle, turning off the motor and lights, and the alighting from the car of both companions. The activities of Mr. Tyler during this first phase were directed solely at facilitating the removal of the boat from the trailer so that the car could be parked and the fishing trip begun. The first phase must be said to include the full five-minute period which it customarily took Mr. Tyler and Mr. Lutz to perform these duties. Plf's brief, p. 11 emphasis supplied

The statement of the argument reveals its fallacy since it seeks to expand the phrase "alighting from" by encompassing all activities until both companions had left the car and entered the boat. Neither party has found, nor has my research revealed, any Alabama case on point. The plaintiff cites two cases, Madden v. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 82 Ohio App. 111, 79 N. E.2d 586 (1948), and Lokos v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 197 Misc. 40, 93 N.Y.S.2d 825 (1949), in support of her argument, but neither deals with the issue before this Court.3 More in point is Saint Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Broyles, 230 Miss. 45, 92 So.2d 252 (1957), where after the plaintiff had parked her car and stepped out, the brakes slipped, and the car ran over her as she walked around the rear of the car to go in the house. She sought recovery under a policy which protected her in the event of an "accident, while in or upon, entering or alighting from the automobile." The court, noting that only a few seconds elapsed between her getting out and the accident, granted recovery. It relied on "a continuity of movement . . ." and the fact that there was "no interruption in her actions involved in the act of alighting from the car and leaving it." 92 So.2d at 254.

The Broyles case provides a reasonable construction of "alighting from," one which the courts of Alabama likely would adopt. Under...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Finch
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1987
    ...Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that this rule can not be employed "to create ambiguity where there is none." Tyler v. Ins. Co. of North America (D.Ala.1974), 381 F.Supp. 1356, 1359; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ward (Mo.1960), 340 S.W.2d 635, Under the facts here, this court can not env......
  • Joins v. Bonner
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1986
    ...existing policy of insurance, nor is it the function of this court to create an ambiguity where none exists. Tyler v. Ins. Co. of North America (D.Ala.1974), 381 F.Supp. 1356, 1359. The majority, in arriving at its conclusion herein, announces no less than six additional standards upon whic......
  • Harris v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • March 20, 1985
    ...entirely distinct from acts reasonably incident to making an exit out of and away from the car. Tyler v. Insurance Co. of North America, Inc., 381 F.Supp. 1356, 1360 (N.D.Ala. 1974), rev'd. on other grounds, 539 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir.1976). However, the cases in which the term "alighting" has ......
  • Kantola v. State Farm Ins.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Common Pleas
    • November 14, 1979
    ...many times, an "insurance contract will be construed most strongly against the party who framed it." Tyler v. Insurance Co. of North America (N.D.Ala.S.D.1974), 381 F.Supp. 1356. In Robson v. Lightning Rod Mut. Ins. Co. (1978), 59 Ohio App.2d 261, 393 N.E.2d 1053 the Court held: " * * * occ......
  • 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