Vance Trucking Company v. Canal Insurance Company
Decision Date | 09 March 1966 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4364. |
Parties | VANCE TRUCKING COMPANY, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Forrester Trucking Company, Inc., Herbert Francis Carson, Scott Carson, Susan Carson, David Carson, Christopher Carson, and Robert H. Carson, Administrator of the Estate of Annie Barbara Carson, Deceased, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
W. Francis Marion and O. G. Calhoun, Jr., of Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, S. C., for plaintiffs.
Wesley M. Walker and O. Doyle Martin, of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, S. C., for defendants Canal Ins. Co. and Forrester Trucking Co., Inc.
David L. Freeman, and C. T. Wyche, of Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, Greenville, S. C., for defendants Carson.
Plaintiff and defendant insurance companies, by cross motions and oppositions to same, seek this forum's decision as to their individual or collective obligations to their named insured and others. The determination is whether coverage is properly classified as primary and secondary—excess, or concurrent and pro rata. Allstate insists that Canal has primary responsibility protecting both Vance, Allstate's insured, and Forrester, Canal's named insured. Canal urges pro rata responsibility. Each relies on policy inclusions and exclusions of both as dissected together and separately.
This Court's review was had on December 8 and 9, 1965 in a declaratory action arising out of an automobile-truck collision in October, 1962 in Sumter County, South Carolina. Crucial to decision was determination of the agency of the driver of the truck, each of two trucking companies, Vance Trucking Lines and Forrester Trucking Company, contending that the driver was the agent and servant of the other at and before the time and place of the collision. This Court's order held that Vance and Forrester both had supervision of the driver at the time of the accident, that both were therefore liable. This order decided that both Allstate and Canal, insurers for Vance and Forrester respectively, would have to defend tort actions arising out of the accident. The question of the pecuniary responsibility of Allstate and/or Canal was not an issue then.
Subsequent to initial determinations, both Allstate and Canal filed motions1 to have the order amended to declare the rights, duties, obligations and legal relations of the parties under the respective terms of their policies, especially as relates to pecuniary responsibility. Allstate has asked the court to find that its policy, issued to Vance, does not extend coverage to Burgess, the driver, or Forrester, but that the policy of Canal provides coverage to Vance, Forrester and the driver. Canal asks that the court determine the proportionate pecuniary responsibility of the insurers in relation to their respective coverages and the factual determinations heretofore made by the court. The matter is before the court under Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but, aside from that, the parties have stipulated that it is properly before the court.
Basically, this is a controversy between two insurance companies over their related, or unrelated, obligations to their named insureds and others. In other words, is the coverage of one company primary and the other secondary and excess, or are the coverages concurrent and pro rata? Allstate submits that Canal's coverage is primary and protects Vance, Allstate's named insured, Forrester, Canal's named insured, and Burgess, the driver. Canal urges pro rata liability in asking the court to determine the "proportionate" responsibility of the parties. Both companies rely upon varying policy inclusions and exclusions in an effort to obtain the desired result.
Policy construction is imperative here since parties may contract to extend or limit insurance liability risks as they see fit. Thus, the issue here—the coverage of liability insurance—must be determined from the contractual intent and objectives of the parties as expressed in their policies and applicable endorsements. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Reece, 223 F.2d 114 (10th Cir. 1955); 7 Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice, section 7481; 45 C.J.S. Insurance §§ 827 and 829. The extent or limit of risks, if unambiguous, must be taken in their ordinary and popular sense, and an insurer may not be compelled to assume liability which cannot be clearly said to be within a fair and reasonable interpretation of the contract. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Reece, 223 F.2d 114 (10th Cir. 1955); Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Daniel, 104 F.2d 477 (4th Cir. 1939). The contentions of Allstate and Canal regarding their policies must be examined in this light.
Allstate would first focus all attention upon Canal's obligations but, while there may be no doubt about these obligations, the court cannot construe Canal's policy and delineate the obligations therein, without being simultaneously aware of Allstate's policy and the obligations there. It is not practical to consider either policy alone for it is apparent that both policies were written with the express thought that other insurance might be involved.
In attempting to provide for a comprehensive policy, it is a common practice to include extended coverage clauses in automobile liability insurance contracts. Because of this, duplications of coverage would often be found were it not for the further practice of setting forth exclusions to coverage. Such exclusions or limitations may take many forms and may be found in the body of the policy or in endorsements. Regardless of where they are posited, however, these exclusions and limitations have led to a substantial body of jurisprudence. See, e. g., Annot., 76 A.L.R.2d 502; 7 Am.Jur.2d, Automobile Insurance, section 202 (1963); 8 Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice, sections 4911, et seq.
Here, both Allstate and Canal have rather comprehensive policies and both seek to limit particular coverages by exclusions. The extent to which reliance is placed upon an exclusion is shown by the fact that both Allstate and Canal assert a particular exclusion as a basis for denying coverage to one person or company or another Allstate relies completely on its exclusionary endorsement 14B-1 to deny coverage to Forrester and the driver. The endorsement, in part, provides:
Canal places no less reliance on its E-45 endorsement to deny coverage to Vance. Its endorsement provides:
Allstate urges that because of the 14B-1 endorsement its policy offers no protection to Forrester or the driver since the court has already found that the truck was not exclusively about the business of Vance. Unquestionably, the exclusion serves its purpose here. Forrester and Burgess are not covered under Allstate's policy.
Conversely, Canal urges that because of the E-45 endorsement its policy affords no protection to Vance or the driver. Again, unquestionably, this exclusion serves its purpose. Vance and Burgess are not covered under Canal's policy.
The controversy thus resolves itself to this: Allstate's policy protects Vance and Canal's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sloviaczek v. Estate of Puckett
...236 (9th Cir. 1965) (Guam); Allstate Ins. Co. v. American Underwriters, Inc., 312 F.Supp. 1386 (N.D.Ind.1970); Vance Trucking Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 251 F.Supp. 93 (D.S.C.1966), aff'd 395 F.2d 391 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 845, 89 S.Ct. 129, 21 L.Ed.2d 116 (1968); Continental Cas. ......
-
Russell v. Paulson
...and authorities cited in the main opinion see: 63 W.Va.L.Rev. 48 (1960--61); 38 Minn.L.Rev. 838, 847 (1954); Vance Trucking Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 251 F.Supp. 93, 96 (D.C.1966) and cases therein cited; Insurance Co. of Texas v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., 163 F.Supp. 143 (S.D.Calif.19......
-
Macloskie v. Royal Indemnity Company
...to the recent lucid opinion of my colleague, District Judge Robert W. Hemphill, in his opinion in the case of Vance Trucking Co., Inc. v. Canal Ins. Co., 251 F.Supp. 93, from the Greenville Division of this court, decided March 9, ...
-
Vance Trucking Co. v. Canal Insurance Co.
...and that Canal would be pecuniarily responsible for one-sixth of the amount of any such judgments. Vance Trucking Company v. Canal Insurance Company, 251 F.Supp. 93 (D.S.C.1966). Assuming, arguendo, the correctness of the district court's determination that both Vance and Forrester were res......