Vulcan Freight Lines, Inc. v. South Carolina Ins. Co., Inc.

Decision Date21 May 1982
Citation446 So.2d 603
PartiesVULCAN FREIGHT LINES, INC. v. SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. 81-189.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

John R. Frawley, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.

W. Stancil Starnes and Randal H. Sellers, of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

This is an appeal by Vulcan Freight Lines, Inc., from a summary judgment: Vulcan claims the trial court erred in two aspects:

1) In its interpretation of certain coverage and exclusion provisions of a policy of liability insurance; and

2) In its failure to allow an alleged factual issue to be submitted for a jury determination.

A brief statement of the facts will suffice for the purposes of the issues presented.

Richard McKleroy was hauling freight for Vulcan from the U.S. Steel plant at Fairfield, Alabama, to the American Building Company at Eufaula, Alabama. The freight consisted of five 1,000-pound coils of painted steel. According to McKleroy's deposition, as he approached Union Springs, Alabama, while traveling at about fifteen miles an hour, he came to a sharp right curve in the road. While McKleroy was going around the curve, the coils on the trailer shifted, broke loose from the pallets to which they were attached, and rolled off the trailer. During all of this (again, according to his deposition), McKleroy's truck neither overturned nor collided with anything. The sole reason the coils came off of the trailer was the shifting of the load. After the coils were replaced on the trailer by means of a forklift, they were tied down with chains by McKleroy and he continued on his way to Eufaula.

A few miles south of Union Springs, for reasons unknown, one of the coils of steel came off the trailer again and rolled into the adjacent woods. It is without dispute, however, that the truck did not collide with anything and, on this occasion, it was almost dark. McKleroy could not obtain any help to reload this coil, so he continued on his way to Eufaula. At Eufaula, American Building Company refused to take possession of the cargo and refused to aid McKleroy in the recovery of the lost coil of steel.

On McKleroy's return trip to Birmingham with the remaining coils, he stopped at the site of the second accident and tried to find the lost coil, but was unable to do so. The coil of steel which rolled into the woods was not found during a search conducted by U.S. Steel. Apparently, the coil was stolen. Its whereabouts is still unknown.

Vulcan's claim against South Carolina Insurance Company is premised upon a policy of insurance containing the following pertinent provisions:

"THIS POLICY INSURES.

"...

"The Insured's liability for loss of or damage to property insured hereunder directly caused by: ... (c) Collision, i.e., accidental collision of the vehicle with any other vehicle or object (the striking of curbing or any portion of the road bed or the striking of rails or ties of street, steam or electric railroads, or contact with any stationary object in backing for loading or unloading purposes, or the coming together of trucks and trailers during coupling or uncoupling shall not be deemed a collision); ...

"...

"PROPERTY EXCLUDED.

"This policy does not insure the Insured's liability for: ... (f) loss or damage caused by or resulting from theft of property that is not contained within a fully enclosed wood or metal cargo compartment of the transporting vehicle."

Notwithstanding Appellant's earnest insistence that we read some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Welch v. Houston County Hosp. Bd.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1987
    ...to interrogatories to be submitted in support of, or in opposition to, a summary judgment motion (see Vulcan Freight Lines v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 446 So.2d 603, 604-05 (Ala.1982)), that evidence must, nevertheless, conform to the requirements of Rule 56(e) and be admissible at trial. G......
  • Car Center, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1988
    ...to interrogatories to be submitted in support of, or in opposition to, a summary judgment motion (see Vulcan Freight Lines v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 446 So.2d 603, 604-05 (Ala.1981)), that evidence must nevertheless, conform to the requirements of Rule 56(e) and be admissible at trial. Gr......

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