William B. Hall v. Crystal Lake Ice Co.

• Decision Date: 03 May 1938
• Parties: WILLIAM B. HALL v. CRYSTAL LAKE ICE CO. ET AL
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

199 A. 252

109 Vt. 416

WILLIAM B. HALL v. CRYSTAL LAKE ICE CO. ET AL

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 3, 1938

February Term, 1938.

Workmen's Compensation Act---Payment and Control of Claimant Determinative as to Employer---Status of Findings of Commissioner of Industries---Conclusion That Work at Another Plant Was Appurtenant to Defendant's Business Held Not Error---Injury Sustained at Another Plant Held within Coverage of Compensation Policy---Operations Not on Premises Designated Within Coverage of Policy If Appurtenant to Operations Conducted Thereon---Declaration in Policy as to Place of Operation Held Not to Exclude from Coverage Injury Sustained at Another Plant under Arrangement for Exchanging Work.

1. Where claimant under Workmen's Compensation Act was injured while working at plant of another company under arrangement between defendant employer and such company for "swapping work," finding of commissioner of industries that claimant, while so working, was paid by and remained under exclusive control of defendant's superintendent, settled his status as employee of defendant at time of injury, especially in view of finding that work at the other company's plant had become an established mode of operation in defendant's business and was incidental and appurtenant thereto.

2. Findings of fact made by commissioner of industries in proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act stand like findings of referee or master, and are binding if legally supported by evidence.

3. Where commissioner of industries found that claimant under Workmen's Compensation Act was working at time of injury at plant of another company under arrangement for "swapping work" between defendant employer and such other company, that such practice of "swapping" had become established mode of operation over period of years in conduct of business of the two companies, and that claimant's work at such plant was indirectly for defendant's business at place where its plant was located, it could not be said as matter of law, the evidence not being before the Supreme Court, that there was error in conclusion drawn by commissioner from other facts reported that such practice of "swapping" might well be regarded as appurtenant or incidental to conduct of defendant's business.

4. In proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act, fact that injury was sustained at place not mentioned in declaration in policy as to location of defendant employer's work places did not relieve defendant insurer from liability where policy expressly covered operations elsewhere than at designated location of the premises which were incidental or appurtenant to operations at place of business described, and claimant was working while injured at plant of another company under arrangement for "swapping work," which was found to have become incidental and appurtenant to conduct of employer's business.

5. Operations not on premises designated in compensation insurance policy were within terms and contemplation of the policy if incidental or appurtenant to operations conducted at place of business described.

6. Declaration in compensation insurance policy that insured was conducting no operations at any place other than named town did not constitute representation which would exclude from coverage of policy accident sustained by employee at plant of another company in another town while working under arrangement between insured and such other company for "swapping work," which had become established mode of operation of the two businesses, since policy was to be read as a whole and was to cover not merely operations described in declaration but also "all operations necessary or appurtenant thereto or connected therewith whether conducted at the work places defined and described in said Declarations or elsewhere in connection with or in relation to such work places."

APPEAL to Supreme Court, Orleans County, from award of commissioner of industries, Howard E. Armstrong, Commissioner. The claimant appealed from an award ordering payment of compensation by the employer, but discharging the insurance carrier. The opinion states the case.

The order discharging the insurance carrier is vacated. Judgment that the American Fidelity Company is liable. Let the result be certified to the commissioner of industries.

Lee E. Emerson for the claimant.

Clarence R. White for the defendant insurance company.

Present POWERS, C. J., SLACK, MOULTON, SHERBURNE and BUTTLES, JJ.

OPINION

MOULTON

This is an appeal by the claimant from an award by the commissioner of industries, ordering the payment of compensation by the employer, but discharging the insurance carrier. No question is made concerning the nature of the injury, the extent of the disability, or the amount of compensation; the only point is whether the policy issued by the insurance carrier covered the operation during which the accident occurred.

There is no dispute as to the facts. The insured, Joseph E. Hendy was engaged in the business of harvesting, storing and retailing natural ice at Barton, Vermont, under the name of the Crystal Lake Ice Company. He was insured under a workmen's compensation and employer's liability policy, issued by the American Fidelity Company, by which the insurer agreed "to pay promptly any person entitled thereto, under the Workmen's Compensation Law and in the manner therein provided, the entire amount of any sum due and all installments thereof as they become due," and "to indemnify this Employer against loss by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages on account of such injuries to such of said employees as are legally employed wherever such injuries may be sustained within the territorial limits of the United States of America." Other material provisions of the policy are as follows:

" This Agreement Shall Apply to such injuries so sustained by reason of the business operation described in said Declarations which, for the purpose of this insurance shall include all operations necessary, incident or appurtenant thereto, or connected therewith, whether such operations are conducted at the work places defined and described in said Declarations or elsewhere in connection with, or relation to, such work places * * *....