Upper Columbia River Towing Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.

Decision Date14 December 1959
Docket NumberCiv. No. 9897.
Citation179 F. Supp. 705
PartiesUPPER COLUMBIA RIVER TOWING COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; Rodgers Insurance Agency, Inc., a corporation; Steamship Mutual Underwriters Association, Limited, a corporation; and Argonaut Underwriters Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon

Burda, Halstead & Cushman, The Dalles, Or., for plaintiff.

Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Denecke & Kinsey, Portland, Or., for defendant Glens Falls Ins. Co.

McCarty, Swindells, Miller & McLaughlin, Portland, Or., for defendant Rodgers Insurance Agency, Inc.

Krause, Lindsay & Nahstoll, Portland, Or., for defendant Steamship Mut. Underwriters Ass'n, Limited.

Gray & Lister, Portland, Or., for defendant Argonaut Underwriters Ins. Co.

KILKENNY, District Judge.

One Vernon S. Taylor was an employee of plaintiff, Upper Columbia River Towing Company, a corporation. On June 7, 1955, Taylor was injured while aiding other crew members in removing cargo from a certain barge which the tug had towed to the Port of San Pedro, California. Taylor commenced an action against his employer in the Oregon State Circuit Court alleging negligence on the part of plaintiff. Plaintiff offered the defense of the action to the defendants Glens Falls Insurance Company, a corporation, Steamship Mutual Underwriters Association Limited, a corporation, and Argonaut Insurance Group, a corporation. The companies, individually, refused to accept the defense of the action. After some negotiations the plaintiff settled the pending litigation with Taylor for $4,500, and plaintiff then commenced this action against the three insurance companies and Rodgers Insurance Agency, a corporation. The complaint of Taylor against the plaintiff clearly shows that he was pursuing his remedy in said action under the Jones Act, Title 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. The Rodgers Agency, at the time of the issuance of the insurance policies in question, was the local agent of the A. B. Knowles Company, which was the general agent of defendant Steamship Mutual Underwriters Association Limited, Taylor was a member of the crew of the Tug Winquatt at the time of the accident. One of his duties as a member of that crew was to assist in removing cargo from the barge, which was connected with and attached to the tug. Defendant Steamship Mutual concedes that its policy would cover any injury to Taylor which might have arisen out of his employment and which occurred on the tug, but contends that the policy would not cover the injury to Taylor sustained on the barge, even though the particular injury was covered by the Jones Act.

The testimony is clear and convincing that the Rodgers Agency intended to cover any and all liability of plaintiff, including complete coverage under the Jones Act. In order to properly construe the position of the respective parties under the provisions of the respective policies, we must place ourselves in the position of those parties at the time the Rodgers Agency agreed to such coverage. Since there was a direct agreement to cover the particular injury involved, we must look to the position of the parties and the language of the policies to determine which policy covered or was intended to cover this particular type of liability.

The policy issued by defendant Glens Falls Insurance Company expressly excludes any liability under the Jones Act. The policy contains a positive declaration that the insurance is void if the insured did not carry insurance under the Jones Act, and Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. and the California, Oregon and Washington Workmen's Compensation Acts, West's Ann.Cal.Labor Code, § 3201 et seq.; ORS 656.002 et seq.; RCW 51.04.010 et seq. The risk involved in Taylor's action against the plaintiff was not covered by the policy of insurance of the Glens Falls Insurance Company.

Likewise, the policy of the defendant Argonaut Underwriters Insurance Company does not cover the risk involved. The coverage of said company on the date of the injury to Taylor was limited to liability under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act arising out of operations in the territorial waters of the State of Oregon. Even though I should find, which I do not, that Taylor was not a member of a crew of a vessel, there could be no recovery under the policy of the Argonaut. The testimony is undisputed that this accident occurred in the territorial waters of the State of California. The fact that Taylor was a member of the crew of a vessel, which is one of my findings, is an additional reason why the coverage provided by the Argonaut policy does not extend to the injuries received by Taylor.

The policy issued by the defendant Steamship Mutual is one which is commonly known as a P & I policy, the letters standing for "Protection & Indemnity." The policy of the Steamship Mutual specifically covers and describes the members of the crew of the Tug Winquatt and uses language which clearly shows that the insured was covered for any liability to a member of the crew under the Jones Act. Defendant Steamship Mutual contends that since there was no specific description or mention of the barge in the policy, that the provisions of the policy did not cover Taylor, even though Taylor was working as a member of the crew of the tug on the barge at the time of his injury. The testimony is uncontradicted that assisting in the unloading of the barge was part of the towage operation and that such assistance was one of the duties of the crew members. These facts were known to the Rodgers Insurance Agency and knowledge thereof would be imputed to the Steamship Mutual through its general agency, the A. B. Knowles Company. The language used in the policy must be defined and construed in the light of the known facts. I am of the opinion that we can well look to the exclusions in the policy in order to determine what the parties intended to include. The policy of the Steamship Mutual provided:

"Notwithstanding anything
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Transnational Insurance Company v. Rosenlund
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • August 16, 1966
    ...Northeast Clackamas County Elec. Co-op. v. Continental Cas. Co., 221 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1955); Upper Columbia River Towing Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 179 F.Supp. 705 (D.Or.1959). In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith, i. e. that neither party will do anything which ......
  • Close-Smith v. Conley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • May 20, 1964
    ...provisions of an insurance policy and its reception does not violate the parole evidence rule. Upper Columbia River Towing Co. v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., D.C., 179 F.Supp. 705. An ambiguous contract, which may be aided by parole evidence, is a contract, the language of which is doubtful ......
  • Shepard v. Keystone Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. HAR-89-3379.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • July 31, 1990
  • Joseph E. Bennett Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1962
    ...later policies should be interpreted in the same way. Bennett also contends (largely on the basis of Upper Columbia River Towing Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 179 F.Supp. 705, 707 [D.Or.]) that the insurance companies, through the knowledge of their general agents, knew that Bennett wanted v......
  • 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