Summary
requiring contribution by general insurers
Summary of this case from DOME PETROLEUM v. EMPLOYERS MUT. LIAB. INSOpinion
Submitted February 16, 1945 —
Decided April 19, 1945.
On appeal from the Mercer County Circuit Court, in which court Circuit Court Judge Oliphant filed the following opinion
"The suit was heard by the court without a jury upon stipulation of the parties. The facts were not in dispute and at the conclusion of the testimony counsel were given an opportunity to submit briefs relative to the question presented. That issue is whether there should be a contribution between the Maryland Casualty Company, the Century Indemnity Company and the defendant herein, in payment of the loss sustained by the plaintiff. It has been agreed that if it is determined there should be contribution, judgment shall be for the plaintiff and against this defendant in the sum of $944.75 and that if there should not be contribution from the Maryland Casualty Company and the Century Indemnity Company, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff shall be for $2,741.33.
"The suit was instituted by the plaintiff, which was the employer of one McGourty who forged endorsements on certain payroll checks and thereafter negotiated them. The bank on which the checks were drawn is in no way involved in this suit.
"During the period over which the loss was sustained the plaintiff carried with the defendant company insurance policies protecting it against loss by forgery. During part of the same time the plaintiff was also protected against loss of money or other personal property through fraudulent or dishonest acts of its employees, including forgery, by a Commercial Blanket Bond, issued by the Maryland Casualty Company and for the balance of the term by a similar bond of the Century Indemnity Company.
"The bond of the defendant company contained the following provision:
"`If, in case of any loss on account of any office covered under this bond, the Insured shall hold any other valid and collectible bond, policy, indemnity or security, against such loss, the Company shall not be liable for a greater proportion thereof than the amount carried on such office bears to the total sum of all such bonds, policies, indemnity and security, including the amount carried on such office. If, however, the amount carried on such office and such other bond, policy, indemnity and security or any of them, shall have been reduced by payment or otherwise as to such loss, then such reduced amount or amounts shall be taken in calculating the proportionate part of such loss to be paid by the Company.'
"The bonds of the Maryland Casualty Company and the Century Indemnity Company were identical and contained the following provision:
"`If the Insured shall hold or be entitled to the benefit of any valid and enforceable insurance or suretyship against any loss covered under this bond, other than the fidelity suretyship, if any, for which credit has been given in accordance with the preceding paragraph, the Underwriter shall not be liable under this bond for a greater proportion of such loss than the amount of this bond bears to the aggregate amount of this bond and such other insurance or suretyship.'
"In the first place it should be noted that the bond of the defendant is a specific policy, the risk being limited to losses resulting from forgery or alteration of commercial papers and documents as specified in the policy. The bonds of the Maryland Casualty Company and the Century Indemnity Company are blanket bonds indemnifying the named insured against loss caused by acts of its employees in many particulars. The only contingency in which the two types of bonds overlap is in the event that a loss is brought about by the dishonesty or fraud of an employee put into effect by forgery.
"Plaintiff contends that Maryland and Century are not obligated to contribute because the bonds are not identical, the risk involved is not the same and that to compel contribution there must be identity of undertaking as well as an identity of principle. I am not impressed with the argument nor the cases cited in support thereof as applicable to the instant case. The opinions are based on the fact that there was a dissimilarity of risk under the policies and that the Companies were not bound by a common burden in the same degree. It is common knowledge that insurance and indemnity companies are paid in premiums for the risk they assume. A policy specific in character covering a single risk costs less than a blanket policy covering many risks. In other words, the more the coverage, the more the cost.
"The loss sustained by the plaintiff was covered by the bonds of the defendant company and also by the bonds of Maryland and Century. The test relative to contribution under bonds such as the ones here, should be and is whether those called upon to make contribution would individually be liable for the loss sustained, had there been no other bond.
"A court of law will not make new contracts for parties who have made engagements between themselves in unambiguous terms. The rights of the parties must be determined from these contracts. The contract made between the plaintiff and the defendant provided for contribution where any other valid and collectible bonds were held against such loss. The bonds of Maryland and Century meet this contingency. The plaintiff made with all three companies contracts which gave them, as against it, a benefit arising from co-insurance.
"In Grollimum v. Germania Fire Insurance Co., 82 N.J.L. 618, which was a fire insurance case involving the question of contribution between companies, one of which had issued a specific policy, the other a blanket policy, Mr. Justice Trenchard speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals, used pertinent and persuasive language which is applicable to the instant case. He said "The insured's rights, as against the defendant in this case must be determined from the contract made between the insured and the company, and not by an adjustment of equities between insurance companies requiring the court to rewrite the contract so sued upon and make a new and different contract." Again, he said, "If parties are not to be left to make their own contracts in matters of insurance, it is for the legislature, which has already established a standard form, to go further and prescribe a clause covering the apportionment of blanket and specific insurance."
"In a case such as presented here there might conceivably be a question as to the amount or percentage of contribution but not as to the principle or right thereof.
"Judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $944.75."
For the appellant, Coult, Satz, Morse Coult.
For the respondent, Carpenter, Gilmour Dwyer ( Carl S. Kuebler, of counsel).
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Oliphant.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, WELLS, RAFFERTY, THOMPSON, DILL, FREUND, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.