Welborn v. Illinois Nat. Cas. Co., Gen. No. 52F7
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | SCHEINEMAN; CULBERTSON, P. J., and BARDENS |
| Citation | 347 Ill.App. 65,106 N.E.2d 142 |
| Parties | WELBORN v. ILLINOIS NAT. CAS. CO. |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 52F7 |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1952 |
Page 142
v.
ILLINOIS NAT. CAS. CO.
[347 Ill.App. 66]
Page 143
Johnson & Johnson, Belleville, for appellant.Goldenhersh & Goldenhersh, E. St. Louis, for appellee.
SCHEINEMAN, Justice.
The plaintiff, Hugh Welborn, operates a garage in which automobiles are repaired. The defendant, Illinois National Casualty Company, insured him against liability for bodily injury (Coverage A) and property damage (Coverage B) arising out of operation of the garage. This court is called upon to decide whether the policy applies under the following facts:
Rufus Brown brought an automobile to plaintiff's garage, where it was destroyed by fire while undergoing[347 Ill.App. 67] repairs. In a suit against Hugh Welborn, he was held liable upon the ground that the damage was caused by the negligence of his agent and servant in repairing the car. The judgment was affirmed in this court, Brown v. Welborn, 338 Ill.App. 507, 88 N.E.2d 104.
The policy defines the operations covered and states the company will pay such sums as the insured may become liable to pay because of liability arising out of such operations. The definition follows, italics ours:
'The ownership, maintenance, occupation, or use of the premises herein designated, including the public ways immediately adjoining, for the purpose of an automobile dealer or repair shop, and all operations either on the premises or elsewhere which are necessary and incidental thereto, including repairs of automobiles or their parts, and ordinary repairs of buildings on the premises and the mechanical equipment thereof; and the ownership, maintenance, or use of any automobile for any purpose in connection with the above defined operations, and also for pleasure use.'
The policy also stated a list of 'Exclusions' of which the following is the basis of this controversy: 'This policy does not apply: Under Coverage B, to property owned by, rented to, in charge, of, or transported by the insured.'
The precise wording of the general exclusion provision appears to be in direct conflict with the specifically defined operations which are declared covered. For example, it excludes property owned by the insured, while the specific coverage includes ownership of an automobile, used in other operations and even for pleasure use.
Appellant relies upon the exclusion of property 'in charge of' the insured. We note that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knoll Pharmaceutical v. Automobile Ins. Co.
...are given effect and are in harmony, making them consistent and workable. Refco, 2001 WL 869626, at *3; Welborn v. Ill. Nat'l Cas. Co., 347 Ill.App. 65, 106 N.E.2d 142, 143 (1952). In construing insurance contracts, courts should interpret them as complete documents, not isolated parts. Wei......
-
Bell v. Tilton, 55460
...... garnishee Great Plains Mutual Insurance Co., Inc. . The background facts as ...467] appealed. In reversing, the Illinois Court of Appeals commented: . "We are of the ... See Welborn v. Illinois Nat. Cas. Co., 347 Ill.App. 65, 69, ......
-
Founders Ins. Co. v. Walker
...from coverage for his liability to the owner of any other vehicle involved in the collision.” Welborn v. Illinois National Casualty Co., 347 Ill.App. 65, 68, 106 N.E.2d 142 (1952). “Even the ordinary owner of an automobile knows the difference between automobile liability insurance and coll......
-
McLouth Steel Corp. v. Mesta Machine Co., 11232.
......This was done in Chicago, Illinois. Therefore, we look to the law of Illinois for ... court relied, correctly we think, upon Welborn v. Illinois Nat. Cas. Co., 1952, 347 Ill. App. ......