Wymore v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Neb.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 36753,36753 |
| Parties | Clara M. WYMORE, Administratrix of the Estate of Max E. Wymore, Deceased, Appellee, v. FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEBRASKA, a Corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
For medical payments coverage, accidental bodily injury to an independent contractor in the repair of a family home, without other circumstances, is not excluded by the following clause: The policy 'Does Not Apply * * * to bodily injury to * * * any person * * * if such person * * * is on the premises because of a business conducted thereon, or is injured by an accident arising out of such business.'
Ray C. Simmons, Fremont, for appellant.
Kerrigan, Line & Martin, Fremont, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN and NEWTON, JJ.
Plaintiff claimed benefits under medical payment provisions of an insurance policy issued by defendant to homeowners. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant has appealed. The parties disagree on the meaning of an exclusion clause.
The claim was based on accidental injury to Max E. Wymore at the home of the policyholders, Darrell D. and B. L. DeVoe. Wymore had fallen off a ladder while performing an independent contract to repair the roof of the DeVoe home. Resultant injuries caused his death on June 22, 1966, 2 days after the fall.
Insuring agreements in Section II of the policy covered the accidental injury unless the event fell within exclusion clause (g)(3) which reads: 'Section II * * * Does Not Apply: * * * (g) * * * to bodily injury to * * * (3) any person * * * if such person * * * is on the premises because of a business conducted thereon, or is injured by an accident arising out of such business.'
Wymore was not on the DeVoe premises because of a business conducted there. 'Because of' means 'by reason of: on account of.' Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabr. Ed. 1961), p. 194. See, also, Random House Dictionary (Unabr. Ed. 1966), 'because,' p. 132. The phrase does not signify that the relation between 'person * * * on the premises' and 'a business conducted thereon' is casual or secondary. The relation is primary in ordinary understanding. For example, the customer buying a product in a store is on the premises because of a business conducted there. On the other hand, the newsboy collecting at a subscriber's door is not on the premises because of a business conducted there. The relation between the activity and the premises in the one case is primary whereas the relation in the other case is secondary. The interpretation holds for the remainder of clause (g)(3) which applies to 'such business.'
The above interpretation is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Duncan, S–15–668.
...238 Neb. 4, 468 N.W.2d 607 (1991).12 See § 28–111.13 State v. Cook, supra note 4.14 Id.15 Wymore v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Nebraska, 182 Neb. 763, 764, 157 N.W.2d 194, 195 (1968) (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 194 (1961)).16 City of Gordon v. Ruse, 268 N......
-
State v. Duncan, S-15-668.
...Neb. 4, 468 N.W.2d 607 (1991). 12. See § 28-111. 13. State v. Cook, supra note 4. 14. Id. 15. Wymore v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Nebraska, 182 Neb. 763, 764, 157 N.W.2d 194, 195 (1968) (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 194 (1961)). 16. City of Gordon v. Ruse,......
-
Frisch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...appellant points out, there do not appear to be any cases in point in Pennsylvania. However, see Wymore v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, 182 Neb. 763, 157 N.W.2d 194 (1968). In that remarkably similar case, the plaintiff, an independent contractor, while performing repairs t......
-
Frisch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
... ... point in Pennsylvania. However, see Wymore v. Farmers ... Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, 182 ... ...