Williams v. Ornamental Stone Co.
Decision Date | 10 May 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 377,377 |
Citation | 232 N.C. 88,59 S.E.2d 193 |
Parties | WILLIAMS, v. ORNAMENTAL STONE CO. et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Pierce & Blakeney, Charlotte, and Nelson Woodson, Salisbury, for plaintiff appellant.
Ralph V. Kidd, Charlotte, for defendant Ornamental Stone Company appellant.
Helms & Mulliss, and James B. McMillan, Charlotte, for American Mutual Liability Insurance Company appellee.
It was not controverted that the claimant's last exposure to the occupational disease of silicosis occurred while he was in the employ of defendant Stone Company, and that as against his employer compensation therefor was properly awarded. G.S. § 97-58; Young v. Whitehall Co., 229 N.C. 360, 49 S.E.2d 797.
The only question presented by the appeal is whether from the testimony introduced there was any evidence to support the finding of the Industrial Commission that the disease which caused the disablement of the claimant while in the employ of defendant Stone Company was within the coverage of the policy issued by the defendant Insurance Company.
The policy designated the operations of the insured as 'concrete products mfg.--shop or yard work only,' and the location as 2336 South Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina, and contained the following pertinent provisions:
'This agreement shall apply to such injuries so sustained by reason of the business operations 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 in relation to such work places.
'The premium is based upon the entire remuneration earned during the policy period of all employees of--this employer engaged in the business operations described in said declarations together with all operations necessary, incident or appurtenant thereto or connected therewith, whether conducted at such work places or elsewhere in connection therewith, or in relation thereto * * *
'4. The foregoing enumeration and description of employees includes all persons employed in the service of this Employer in connection with the business operations above described to whom remuneration of any nature in consideration of service is paid, allowed or due together with an estimate for the Policy Period of all such remuneration. * * *
From the findings of the Industrial Commission and the evidence offered as shown by the record, it appears that during the time this policy was in force and the claimant as employee of the insured was exposed to silicosis, the defendant Stone Company was engaged in 'concrete products and dimension quarry,' including processing stone for building, monumental and ornamental purposes, with its office in Charlotte. The quarry, belonging to defendant Stone Company, and from which the stone was obtained and where the stone was fabricated, is located at Faith, North Carolina, 40 miles from Charlotte. There fifteen or twenty workmen were employed, including claimant Williams, under a foreman, and the operations were controlled by orders from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDowell Motor Co. v. New York Underwriters Ins. Co.
...used in a policy of insurance is doubtful, it must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer. Williams v. Ornamental Stone Co., 232 N.C. 88, 59 S.E.2d 193; Manning v. Commerce Insurance Co., 227 N.C. 251, 41 S.E.2d 767; Roberts v. American Alliance Insurance Co., 212 N.C.......
-
Chatfield v. Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...policies must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and against the insurer, these same counsel cite Williams v. Ornamental Stone Co., 232 N.C. 88, 59 S.E.2d 193; Gould Morris Electric Co. v. Atlantic Fire Insurance Co., 229 N.C. 518, 50 S.E.2d 295. On the "omnibus clause" our atte......
- State v. Chavis, 578
-
Barrington v. Employment Sec. Commission
...not constitute detrimental reliance. An insurer can recover unpaid premiums if liability is established. See Williams v. Stone Co., 232 N.C. 88, 91, 59 S.E.2d 193, 195 (1950). We, therefore, sustain appellants' first assignment of error. Appellants next argue the Commission erred in failing......