From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

West Phila. Stock Yd. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 12, 1930
100 Pa. Super. 459 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1930)

Summary

In West Philadelphia Stock Yard Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 100 Pa. Super. 459, 462, it was said that it was "the nature of plaintiff's claim against the stock company [the insured] which determined whether the company [the casualty insurance company] was required to defend", but if the claim came within the scope of the policy the company was obliged to defend even though the claim might be wholly groundless, false or fraudulent.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Maryland Cas. Co.

Opinion

October 2, 1930.

December 12, 1930.

Insurance — Public liability policy — Suit — Defense of — Costs — Recovery of — Statement of claim — Affidavit of defense — Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

In an action of assumpsit by a stockyard company against an insurance company, the plaintiff alleged that it was insured with the defendant company under a general liability policy. The policy was issued to cover the plaintiff against accidents in the conduct of its stockyard business, but excepted the defendant from liability for accidents resulting from the operation of automobiles or other vehicles. One of the duties of the defendant, under the policy, was to defend the plaintiff from any suits instituted against it on account of any claims even though the demands were groundless, false or fraudulent. Subsequent to the issuance of the policy suits were instituted against the plaintiff company by two persons who had been injured by a steer. The injured persons alleged that servants of the plaintiff company had been negligent in allowing the steer to break loose while unloading it from a truck after an automobile journey had ended. The plaintiff company incurred expenses in defending itself from the claims of the injured persons and demanded reimbursement from the defendant company. The defendant company denied liability and in its affidavit of defense averred that the injuries caused by the steer were not covered by the policy and that the accident came within the provision of the policy excluding automobile operations.

Held: (1) That the escape of the steer in the process of unloading was not an "automobile accident," and (2) that the judgment entered against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will be affirmed.

The defendant was under obligation to defend the suit on behalf of the plaintiff against the claims of the injured persons. It was not the actual details of the accident, but the nature of the claims against the plaintiff which determined whether the defendant was required to defend. Even though the allegations of the injured persons were "groundless, false or fraudulent," the defendant was nevertheless under the duty to assume the burden of the trial and the expenses incident thereto.

Appeal No. 21, October T., 1930, by defendant from judgment of C.P., No. 4, Philadelphia County, June T., 1929, No. 4014, in the case of West Philadelphia Stock Yard Company v. Maryland Casualty Company.

Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE and WHITMORE, JJ. Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a policy of insurance. Before FINLETTER, P.J.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court made absolute the rule. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.

Thomas J. Clary, and with him Richard A. Smith and Louis Wagner, for appellant.

Theodore F. Jenkins, for appellee.


Argued October 2, 1930.


The lower court entered judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Plaintiff was engaged in the business of maintaining a stock yard for receiving livestock and delivering it to its customers throughout Philadelphia, and had taken out a "general liability" policy in defendant company. On March 17, 1926, it delivered some steers to a slaughter house within the city and as they were being unloaded, one of them escaped and injured two persons who thereafter brought suit against the company. The basis of both suits was negligence on the part of the defendant's servants in allowing the cattle to break loose and it was claimed that as this had happened in the conduct of the plaintiff's business, liability ensued.

The suits resulted in favor of the stock yard company who then brought this present suit against the insurance company to recover the expenses incurred in defeating the claims. The company's defense is that the injuries caused by the steer were not covered by the policy, that the accident came within the provision of the policy, excluding automobile operations. The general liability clause of the policy covered the place where the plaintiff's operations were carried on "and elsewhere." The clause under which the defendant claims exemption from liability reads as follows: "This agreement does not cover any accident directly or indirectly caused by any automobile, vehicle or by any draught or driving animal or vehicle owned or used by the assured, or by any employee of the assured in charge of such or any such vehicle or animal, unless such accident occurs upon premises owned by or under the control of the assured, or on the public ways immediately adjacent thereto, etc."

It is very evident that the escape of a steer in the process of unloading is not an "automobile accident" in common parlance, and we are not called upon to give the term a broad meaning in order to allow the company to escape liability. We quote from the opinion of the court below:

"The policy was one issued to cover the plaintiffs against accidents in the conduct of their stockyard business. This includes the reception of cattle at the yards, their care while there, and their delivery to their customers. The intention ...... was to except the company from liability for accidents during transit, that is, the liability that attaches to careless driving of automobiles. This is evident from the reference to automobiles and draught animals and vehicles. That sort of insurance is entirely different from insurance against accidents occurring in the conduct of the business of the assured."

"If assured's drivers negligently collided with someone, the accident was not covered. But if they conducted the assured's business of delivering stock negligently, this was covered. As the accident is described, the automobile journey was ended. The truck had arrived at the customer's place of business. It was while delivering the steers from the truck that one of them escaped and did the damage complained of. That is, it was the handling of the steers, not the driving of the truck, that did the harm." Apart from this, the defendant was under obligation to defend the suit on behalf of the stock company. It was not the actual details of the accident, but the nature of plaintiff's claim against the stock company which determined whether the company was required to defend.

The policy states as one of the duties of the company: "To defend in the name and on behalf of the assured any suits or other proceedings which may at any time be instituted against the assured on account of such injuries, including death resulting therefrom, including suits or other proceedings alleging such injuries or death and demanding damages therefor, although such suits, proceedings, allegations and demands are wholly groundless, false or fraudulent; but the company reserves the right to settle any such suit."

The plaintiffs in the accident cases did not seek to recover for any matter referring to the careless handling of the automobile. They alleged negligence in the delivery of the steer. Even if the statements of cause of action did not agree with the state of facts averred in defendant's affidavit and for present purposes assumed to be true, the company was bound to defend. If the allegations were "groundless, false or fraudulent," the company must nevertheless assume the burden of the trial and the expenses incident thereto.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

West Phila. Stock Yd. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 12, 1930
100 Pa. Super. 459 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1930)

In West Philadelphia Stock Yard Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 100 Pa. Super. 459, 462, it was said that it was "the nature of plaintiff's claim against the stock company [the insured] which determined whether the company [the casualty insurance company] was required to defend", but if the claim came within the scope of the policy the company was obliged to defend even though the claim might be wholly groundless, false or fraudulent.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Maryland Cas. Co.
Case details for

West Phila. Stock Yd. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co.

Case Details

Full title:West Philadelphia Stock Yard Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 12, 1930

Citations

100 Pa. Super. 459 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1930)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Maryland Cas. Co.

In Fullmer v. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 350 Pa. 451, 452, 39 A.2d 623, it was said: "It is…

Springfield Twp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co.

" Moreover, appellant itself recognized that the terms of the policy were broad enough to include damages to…