Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Ryburn, 5-1489

• Decision Date: 24 March 1958
• Docket Number: No. 5-1489,5-1489
• Parties: WASHINGTON FIRE & MARINE INS. COMPANY, Appellant, v. Byron L. RYBURN, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 302

311 S.W.2d 302

228 Ark. 930

WASHINGTON FIRE & MARINE INS. COMPANY, Appellant, v. Byron L. RYBURN, Appellee.

No. 5-1489.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 24, 1958.

Wilton E. Steed, Pine Bluff, for appellant.

George N. Holmes and George H. Holmes, Rison, for appellee.

HOLT, Justice.

Appellee brought this suit against appellant, Washington Fire & Marine Insurance Company, to recover $328.78 alleged damages to his 1 1/2 ton motor truck, under the terms of a collision insurance policy issued to appellee, plus the 12% statutory penalty and a reasonable attorney's fee, Ark.Stats. § 66-514. Appellant's answer was a general denial of any liability. A trial before the court, by agreement, resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee for the amount prayed, along with the statutory penalty and an attorney's fee of $100. From the judgment is this appeal.

The record reflects that appellee's employee on November 23, 1956, while driving appellee's truck along the highway, at an approximate speed of 45 miles per hour, encountered a slick place in the roadway, lost control of the truck, careened off the highway, hit a knoll causing the truck to bounce, went down an embankment and plunged into a ditch filled with water. The truck came to rest (without overturning) with the water over the front fenders, completely submerging the motor, with its front end lower than the rear slanting at an angle of about 45~. The left front fender, front bumper and radiator were damaged, and the motor water soaked and almost completely ruined. The truck driver testified: 'all the front end was under the water and the back end still sticking out.' An automobile mechanic testified: 'that the water damage to the motor would amount to $321.03' and estimates placed as much as $78.13 for damages to the truck other than water damage.

The insurance policy in question contained the following clause: 'Coverage 13-1--Collision or Upset: Direct and accidental loss of or damage to the automobile caused by collision of the automobile with another object or by upset of the automobile.' Appellant says: 'The question before this court is whether * * * driving into a ditch filled with water is a collision within the terms of the insurance policy.' It appears that this court has not heretofore been called upon to construe a similar clause in an insurance policy where the fact situation is in effect similar to what we have here. It is a settled rule in this state (and appears to be the general rule elsewhere) that policies of insurance will be interpreted and construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer, who wrote the insurance contract, and any doubt as to the meaning of language used should be resolved in favor of the insured. It is also well settled that exceptions and words of limitations will be strictly construed against the insurer. Guided by the above rules of construction we hold that the damages to the trcuk here were caused by a collision of the truck 'with another object'--here, the water in the ditch. Had the appellant intended to limit the extent of its above coverage when a collision occurred 'with another object' it could easily have done so in unmistakable language.

The Supreme Court of Oregon in the case of Ringo v. Automobile Ins. Co., of Hartford, Conn., 143 Or. 420, 22 P.2d 887, had before it for consideration and construction the following clause in an insurance policy insuring the owner of an automobile against 'direct loss or damage to the...