Vinsant Elec. Contractors v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1975 |
| Citation | 530 S.W.2d 76 |
| Parties | VINSANT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, Petitioners, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, Respondents. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Calvin N. Taylor, Cheek, Taylor & Groover, Knoxville, for petitioners.
Robert R. Campbell, Hodges, Doughty & Carson, Knoxville, for respondents.
The sole issue before the Court is the proper interpretation of the 'Broad Form Property Damage Coverage' endorsement or rider to a comprehensive liability insurance policy. We granted certiorari because this is a matter of first impression in this jurisdiction.
The facts are either stipulated or are as contained in the undisputed testimony of a single witness as set forth in a proper bill of exceptions.
Petitioner, an electrical contractor, was engaged to install or mount, two 100 ampere circuit breakers in a panel board or switchboard located in the West Town Mall, a Knoxville area shopping center, in order to connect an air conditioning system for service to an additional shopping center tenant. While so engaged, one of its workmen inadvertently deposited or dropped a socket wrench in such manner that it came in contact with two 'buss' bars producing phase to phase contact and a shortage which caused the entire switchboard to burn and blow up.
The Court of Appeals described the switchboard thusly:
The swichboard in question was a unit composed of many interrelated and interdependent parts, a complex, multi-component collection of electrical wires, switches, breakers, conductors, buss bars, etc., used to receive and direct the proper flow of electricity. The various parts were connected together or immediately adjacent to each other so as to constitute a collective unit called a 'switchboard'. The property being worked upon, and damaged or destroyed, was therefore a single item of property which, though composed of many parts, was clearly a unit of property within itself, self-contained and a single item.
We adopt this description and concur in the conclusion that the damaged switchboard was a single, self-contained item of property.
Claim was made for the resulting damage and liability was denied on the basis of the 'broad form' exclusion. This suit resulted.
The Chancellor held that there was no coverage and the Court of Appeals concurred in that conclusion.
So do we.
The policy contains the conventional 'care, custody or control' exclusion providing that there is no coverage as to:
. . . property in the care, custody or control of the insured or as to which the insured is for any purpose exercising physical control.
This exclusion, however, is substantially liberalized by a Broad Form Property Damage Coverage endorsement which removes and 'replaces' the 'care, custody or control' exclusion and substitutes therefor, to the extent here pertinent, an exclusion of liability for damage sustained on or in connection with:
(d) That particular part of any property, not on premises owned by or rented to the insured,
(i) Upon which operations are being performed by or on behalf of the insured at the time of the property damage arising out of such operation. (Emphasis supplied) 1
Thus the issue presented is not whether petitioner had custody, care or control of the switchboard, for this is an irrelevant consideration. Our concern is limited to the meaning of the phraseology, 'that particular part of any property . . . upon which operations are being performed.'
This, of course, is a question of fact, and its determination will vary with the facts and circumstances of each particular case. It was the obvious intent of the insurance carrier to liberalize and expand coverage and the provision must be so construed. This conclusion is demanded by the fact that the exclusion is not standard but is incorporated by endorsement and only pursuant to the payment of additional premiums. No insurance company could, in good faith, charge, and no insured could, in good judgment, pay for, an endorsement that did not operate to provide additional coverage.
Under the factual situation in this particular case, we hold that the switchboard, in its entirety, or as a unit, is 'that particular part' of the property 'upon which operations are being performed.' We cannot so construe this provision as to limit the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Heartland Builders, LLC
...contractor is performing operations") (collecting cases).104 MTI, Inc. , 913 F.3d at 1250-51 (quoting Vinsant Elec. Contractors v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. , 530 S.W.2d 76, 77 (Tenn. 1975) ).105 Id. at 1251 (citing Jet Line Servs., Inc. v. Am. Emps. Ins. Co. , 404 Mass. 706, 537 N.E.2d 107, 11......
-
WE O'NEIL CONST. v. National Union Fire Ins.
...work was performed on a small portion of something which was a self-contained unit. For instance, in Vinsant Electrical Contractors v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 530 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn.1975), the insured had contracted to install two circuit breakers in a switchboard. During the installation......
-
Alverson v. Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co.
...from this case in that Alverson was contracted to do masonry work, not the cleaning. ¶30 The insured in Vinsant Elec. Contractors v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 530 S.W.2d 76 (Tenn.1975), was contracted to install a circuit breaker in a switchboard. The insured caused a shortage that led to ......
-
Acuity v. Burd & Smith Const., Inc., 20060001.
...Jet Line Services, Inc. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 404 Mass. 706, 537 N.E.2d 107, 111 (1989); Vinsant Elec. Contractors v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 530 S.W.2d 76, 77-78 (Tenn. 1975). Some courts have specifically recognized that facts in each case are determinative of the particular part......