Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. King, 6476
| Decision Date | 31 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6476,6476 |
| Parties | UNION MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Robert N. KING and Globe Indemnity Company. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Pingree & Bigg and William S. Orcutt, Manchester, for Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch, Manchester (Shane Devine, Manchester, orally), for Globe Indemnity Co.
This appeal from a declaratory judgment presents us with the question whether Robert N. King's injury, which occurred when he slipped on ice in the driveway while pushing an automobile owned by Mrs. Gladys Harriman, arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile so as to fix primary coverage under the automobile liability coverage provided by the Globe policy rather than the homeowner's policy of Union Mutual. Globe Indemnity Company had issued a motor vehicle liability policy on Mrs. Harriman's car. This policy obligated Globe Indemnity to pay on behalf of Mrs. Harriman all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of: A. bodily injury . . ., sustained by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned automobile. . . .'
Mrs. Harriman resided with her daughter, Majorie Richards, at the premises where Mr. King's injury occurred. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company had issued to Mrs. Richards a 'homeowners policy' obligating it to pay all bodily injury claims against Mrs. Richards that occurred on the premises where Mr. King was injured The Union Mutual policy contained a clause that provided 'with respect to loss arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of (1) any automobile . . . at the premises or the ways immediately adjoining, . . . this insurance shall not apply to the extent that any valid and collectible insurance on a primary, excess or contingent basis, is available to the insured'.
Union Mutual brought a petition for declaratory judgment to determine whether Globe Indemnity must provide primary insurance coverage because the injury arose 'out of the ownership, maintenance or use' of the Harriman automobile. The trial court found that the injury arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned automobile and that Globe Indemnity therefore had the primary coverage obligation. All exceptions of record were reserved and transferred by Mullavey, J.
Mr. King was sent with a fellow employee to the Harriman house...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Faber v. Roelofs
...enough to satisfy the provision of the policy." 1 Long, The Law of Liability Insurance, § 1.22, pp. 1--57. In Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. King, 113 N.H. 39, 300 A.2d 335 (1973), plaintiff mechanic slipped and fell on an icy driveway while pushing the insured's car out of her garage. There......
-
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 1
...799 (1978); Hall v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 107 Ohio App. 13, 155 N.E.2d 462 (1957). See also Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. King, 113 N.H. 39, 300 A.2d 335 (1973). The court in Michigan Mut. Liab. Co. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 123 Mich.App. 688, 333 N.W.2d 327 (1983) relied on ......
-
Pro Con Constr., Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co.
...however, is inconsistent with our longstanding interpretation of the phrase "arising out of." See , e.g ., Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. King, 113 N.H. 39, 41, 300 A.2d 335 (1973) (interpreting "arising out of" to require less than proximate cause, but more than a tenuous causal connection); ......
-
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co.
...Wiebel v. American Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 1 Storey 151, 51 Del. 151, 140 A.2d 712 (Del.Super.1958); Union Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. King, 113 N.H. 39, 300 A.2d 335 (1973); Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Drum, 568 P.2d 459 (Colo. banc 1977). Aetna seeks to distinguish the present case ......