Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GLOBE INDEM. CO. v. LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO.

May 8, 1942

GLOBE INDEMNITY CO.
v.
LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KALODNER

This case involves the construction of certain insurance policies. The issue is that of contribution between insurance companies. It is raised on a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Answer Thereto, and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Briefly summarized, the undisputed facts are as follows:

 On June 21, 1937, the plaintiff, Globe Indemnity Company, issued to the Pennsylvania Sugar Company a public liability policy in the sum of $100,000 insuring it against liability for damages imposed by law on account of injuries suffered by any person or persons while at certain designated places (one of which was Pier 46 North in the City of Philadelphia, which was maintained by the Pennsylvania Sugar Company in connection with the conduct of its business). The policy contained a provision expressly excluding employees of the assured, to wit: "* * * The words 'person' or 'persons' as used in this paragraph do not include any employee or employees of the Insured while in the course of employment by the Insured in any of the duties of such employment in any operations whatsoever of the Insured * * *"

 The policy also provided: "F. The Company shall not be liable for a larger proportion of any loss than the amount hereby insured bears to the total amount of all valid insurance in solvent companies, applicable to such loss."

 In the extension endorsement of said policy there is a classification of work covered, which classification does not include stevedoring.

 On November 24, 1937, the defendant insurance company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, issued a public liability policy in the sum of $25,000 insuring S.C. Loveland Company, Inc., against liability for bodily injuries due to accidents suffered by any persons "* * * except employees of the Assured while in the course of employment or those to whom the Assured may be held liable under the provisions of a workmen's compensation law * * *" and restricting the coverage to stevedoring and clerical operations of the assured and its employees.

 On December 15, 1937, a rider or Additional Interest Endorsement was added to this policy, as follows: "It is agreed that such insurance as is afforded by the policy to the interests named in Item I of the Declarations, herein called 'primary insured', also applied with respect to the interests hereinafter named.

 "It is further agreed that the interests herein named are added at the request of the primary insured; that the primary insured is authorized to act in behalf of such interests; and that return premiums, if any, and such dividends as may be earned and declared by the company, shall be paid to said primary insured.

 "Additional Interests

 "1. The Pennsylvania Sugar Company."

 While all the above policies were in force, one Stephen Novaella, an employee of S.C. Loveland Company, Inc., acting in the scope is his comployment on Pier 46 North, on the premises of the Pennsylvania Sugar Company, sustained serious personal injuries as a result of the negligence of an employee of the Pennsylvania Sugar Company who was operating a crane. Novaella brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 899) against the Pennsylvania Sugar Company, and on October 21, 1940 judgment was entered in favor of Novaella in the sum of $8,000 by Judge Kirkpatrick *fn1"

 The suit was defended by the plaintiff insurance company which paid the judgment. The defendant insurance company disclaimed all liability and refused to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.