Zurich Insurance Company v. Sigourney
Decision Date | 09 May 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 16539.,16539. |
Citation | 278 F.2d 826 |
Parties | ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, and Mack Trucks, Inc., a Corporation, Appellants, v. Robert SIGOURNEY, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey & Williamson, Kenneth E. Roberts, Portland, Or., for appellant.
Hutchinson, Schwab & Burdick, Denton G. Burdick, Jr., Dwight L. Schwab, Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, HAMLIN and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.
The present appeal is brought by Mack Trucks, Inc., and Zurich Insurance Company from a judgment entered April 20, 1959, by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, declaring that appellee, Robert Sigourney, who had been an employee of appellant Mack Trucks, Inc., was entitled to continuing payments so long as a total disability remained, in an amount equal to the compensation and other benefits which would have been payable under the Oregon Workmen's Compensation Act, ORS 656.002 et seq., had the plaintiff and Mack Trucks, Inc., been subject thereto, and giving judgment against the insurance company in the amount of $3223.38 as compensation past due to Sigourney, who was the direct beneficiary of a so-called voluntary compensation endorsement to a policy of insurance issued by Zurich Insurance Company to Mack Trucks, Inc. In addition to that, judgment was given against the insurance company for an amount of reasonable attorneys' fees.
There seems to be no doubt that appellee Sigourney is now totally disabled from a disease known as coccidioidomycosis — called on the West Coast "San Joaquin Valley Fever," since it is endemic to that area of California. The jury found in answer to a special interrogatory that this disease arose out of and in the course of Sigourney's employment by Mack Trucks, Inc., between June 27 and August 26, 1955. During that period Sigourney worked underneath a Mack truck adjusting springs and repairing the transmission. The truck had been driven through the endemic area. Sigourney's necessary hammering under the truck loosened some dust which he must have inhaled. It was in evidence that fungus spores of the disease originate in the soil and that the disease can be contracted only by the inhaling of spores, which have been known to be carried to distant areas on dusty objects.
There is really no point in discussing all the cases cited by the parties on the sufficiency of the evidence to establish what the jury found in its special verdict. None of the cited cases is factually in point, and all are really distinguishable. There was ample evidence offered by appellee to justify the jury's verdict, whether that evidence has to be sufficient according to Oregon standards or according to federal standards (see Metropolitan Coal Co. v. Johnson, 1 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 173, 182).
Jurisdiction of the district court was properly based upon diversity of citizenship. Appellee Sigourney is a citizen and resident of the State of Oregon. Appellant Mack Trucks, Inc., is an Illinois corporation, and appellant Zurich Insurance Company is a Swiss corporation.
The Oregon Workmen's Compensation Act is said to be "voluntary" on the part of the employer, that is, the employer does not come under the Act if he formally rejects such coverage, but if he does so reject the Act, his liability to his employees is to be determined by the common law minus certain defenses theretofore available to employers. Mack Trucks, Inc., elected to reject the Oregon Workmen's Compensation Act. Nevertheless, to protect its employees as fully as though the employer were under the Act, and to obviate any hazards of personal liability at common law, Mack Trucks, Inc., deemed it expedient to obtain from the insurance company a so-called voluntary compensation endorsement reading as follows:
We think it is unnecessary for the employee to establish, in order to recover from the insurance company under coverage C, that he has suffered an injury which would have been compensable under the Oregon Workmen's Compensation Act had the employer elected to come under that Act. Bearing in mind that any ambiguity in the language of an insurance contract is to be construed against the insurer (Roberts v. Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd., 1958, 215 Or. 183, 332 P.2d 600), the word "injury" in the above-quoted coverage C is not to be considered as being modified by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stratford v. Brazelton
...Ctr. for Disease Control & Prevention (Jun. 17, 1994), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031453.htm); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sigourney, 278 F.2d 826, 828 (9th Cir. 1960) ("There seems to be no doubt that appellee Sigourney is now totally disabled from a disease known as coccidioidomyco......
-
Maciel v. Cal. Deapartment of Corr.
...Ctr. for Disease Control & Prevention (Jun. 17, 1994), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031453.htm); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sigourney, 278 F.2d 826, 828 (9th Cir. 1960) ("There seems to be no doubt that appellee Sigourney is now totally disabled from a disease known as coccidioidomyco......
-
Allen v. Kramer
...It has long been recognized that exposure to coccidioidomycosis can be dangerous and, in some cases, fatal. See Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sigourney, 278 F.2d 826, 828 (9th Cir. 1960) ("There seems to be no doubt that appellee Sigourney is now totally disabled from a disease known as coccidioidomyc......
-
Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Snow
...an ambiguity in the language of the insurance contract it is to be construed most strongly against the insurer. Zurich Insurance Co. v. Sigourney, 278 F.2d 826 (9 Cir. 1960); Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 277 U.S. 311, 48 S.Ct. 512, 72 L.Ed. 895. The rule that language in an ......