Aetna Insurance v. Cameron

NO. 81-221 IN THE SUPREBE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS. EARL CAMERON d/b/a CAMERON TRUCK REPAIR and SUHR TRANSPORT and GENE LENZ, d/b/a GENE LENZ CONSTRUCTION, ~efendantsand Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead. Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Warden, Christiansen & Johnson, Kalispell, Montana For Respondents: Murray, Kaufman, Vidal and Gordon, Kalispell, Montana E. Eugene Atherton, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on briefs: July 9, 1981 Decided: September 15, 1981 Filed: Y U' Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f , Aetna I n s u r a n c e Company ( A e t n a ) , a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r and judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t which d e n i e d i t s motion f o r summary judgment and g r a n t e d summary judgment t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . I n i t s c o m p l a i n t Aetna asked f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment c o n s t r u i n g a c a r g o i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s s u e d t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t E a r l Cameron, a self-employed h a u l e r of heavy equipment. The p o l i c y i n s u r e d goods h a u l e d by Cameron a g a i n s t " d i r e c t p h y s i c a l l o s s o r damage c a u s e d by: ... 5. A c c i d e n t a l c o l l i s i o n of c a r r y i n g conveyance w i t h any o t h e r v e h i c l e o r o b j e c t " b u t e x c l u d e d c o v e r a g e f o r : ". . . j . Loss o r damage caused by t h e v e h i c l e coming i n c o n t a c t w i t h any p o r t i o n of t h e roadbed, c u r b i n g , r a i l s o r t i e s of r a i l w a y s ; " k . Loss o r damage caused d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y by t h e l o a d o r any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f o r t a r p a u l i n c o v e r i n g t h e r e o n coming i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h any o t h e r o b j e c t u n l e s s t h e c a r r y i n g v e h i c l e a l s o c o l l i d e s w i t h such object . . ." On November 2 , 1979, Cameron w a s h a u l i n g a f o r k l i f t owned by r e s p o n d e n t Gene Lenz from K a l i s p e l l , Montana, t o Columbia F a l l s , Montana. Before r e a c h i n g i t s d e s t i n a t i o n , t h e f o r k l i f t mast s t r u c k a r a i l r o a d o v e r p a s s c a u s i n g e x t e n s i v e damage t o t h e f o r k l i f t . The c o l l i s i o n between t h e f o r k l i f t and t h e o v e r p a s s caused t h e t r a i l e r t o swerve and s t r i k e t h e overpass supports. The i s s u e r a i s e d by t h i s a p p e a l i s whether t h e damage r e s u l t e d from a p e r i l i n s u r e d a g a i n s t under t h e p o l i c y . There a r e no d i s p u t e d g e n u i n e i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Aetna c o n t e n d s t h e damage was n o t c o v e r e d f o r t h r e e r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e p r i m a r y c o v e r a g e r e q u i r e d a t l e a s t two o c c u r r e n c e s i n t h e p r o p e r sequence b e f o r e c o v e r a g e e x i s t e d : (1) t h e c a r r y i n g conveyance o r t r a i l e r must i n i t i a l l y c o l l i d e w i t h a n o b j e c t , and ( 2 ) t h e c o l l i s i o n between t h e t r a i l e r and o b j e c t must d i r e c t l y c a u s e t h e p h y s i c a l damage o r l o s s t o the cargo. A c o l l i s i o n between t h e c a r g o and a f o r e i g n ob- j e c t which i s t h e d i r e c t c a u s e of t h e damage i s n o t , a r g u e s appellant, within the insured p e r i l . Second, t h e o v e r p a s s formed p a r t of t h e r a i l w a y roadbed, t h e r e f o r e , e x c l u s i o n ( j ) of t h e p o l i c y precludes coverage. Lastly, the accident w a s c o v e r e d by e x c l u s i o n ( k ) . Appellant contends t h a t t h e conveying v e h i c l e d i d n o t c o l l i d e w i t h t h e same o b j e c t a s d i d t h e c a r g o t h u s making e x c l u s i o n ( k ) o p e r a t i v e . The r e s p o n d e n t s c o n t e n d a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s r e q u i r i n g j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e p o l i c y . Respondents r e l y upon ambiguity being construed a g a i n s t t h e insurance c a r r i e r . W e h o l d t h a t t h e g e n e r a l r i s k p r o v i s i o n and e x c l u s i o n ( k ) , a r e ambiguous when r e a d t o g e t h e r . The i n s u r e d i s e n t i t l e d t o a favorable construction. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , a r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s s u p p o r t s t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Aetna h a s c i t e d numerous c a s e s a r i s i n g from c a r g o c o l l i s i o n s where t h e c o u r t s have found no a m b i g u i t y , and have h e l d t h a t t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e terms and d e f i n i t i o n s denied coverage f o r cargo c o l l i s i o n s . Hamilton Trucking S e r v i c e , I n c . v . Automobile I n s . Co. ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 39 Wash.2d 688, 237 P.2d 781; Mendelsohn v . Automobile I n s . Co. ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 290 Mass. 228, 195 N . E . 104; T r i n i t y U n i v e r s a l I n s . Co. v . Robert P. Stapp I n c . ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 278 Ala. 209, 177 S.2d 102; Wolverine I n s u r a n c e Company v . J a c k J o r d a n I n c . ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 213 Ga. 299, 99 S.E.2d 95. Contrary a u t h o r i t y e x i s t s supporting l i b e r a l construction of s i m i l a r c a r g o r i s k p r o v i s i o n s . C & J Commercial rivew way, Inc. v. F i d e l i t y & Guaranty F i r e Corp. ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 258 ~ i c h .624, 2 4 2 N.W. 789; Gould M o r r i s E l e c t r i c Co. v . ~ t l a n t i c i r e F I n s . Co. ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 229 N.C. 518, 50 S.E.2d 295; J o r g e n s o n v . G i r a r d F i r e & Marine I n s . Co. ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 229 Minn. 48, 38 N.W.2d 209. The c a s e s c i t e d a r e n o t c o n t r o l l i n g under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e . None of t h e c a s e s c i t e d i n v o l v e d a n exclusionary provision r e l a t i n g t o cargo c o l l i s i o n s a s w e have h e r e . C o n t r a c t s of i n s u r a n c e a r e i n t e r p r e t e d i n l i g h t of a l l relevant provisions. Alpha Real E s t a t e Dev. v . Aetna L i f e & Cas. Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 301, 570 P.2d 585. Here t h e g e n e r a l r i s k provision provided coverage f o r cargo l o s s c a u s e d by c o l l i s i o n of t h e c a r r y i n g conveyance w i t h a n o b j e c t b u t t h e exclusion only denies coverage i n those i n - s t a n c e s where c a r g o i s damaged b u t t h e conveying v e h i c l e i s not i n collision. The c o n s t r u c t i o n urged by Aetna would r e q u i r e s i n g u l a r f o c u s on t h e g e n e r a l r i s k p r o v i s i o n and l i t t l e o r no c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e meaning and e f f e c t of exclusion ( k ) , t h e only s p e c i f i c policy reference t o cargo collision. The a m b i g u i t y h e r e e v i d e n t must b e r e s o l v e d a g a i n s t the c o n t r a c t ' s author. I t a p p e a r s t h a t c o v e r a g e was i n t e n d e d i f t h e conveying v e h i c l e s t r u c k "such o b j e c t " . Here t h e conveying v e h i c l e s t r u c k a p o r t i o n of t h e o v e r p a s s s t r u c t u r e t h u s s a t i s f y i n g p o l i c y provisions f o r coverage. Aetna a r g u e s t h a t t h e o v e r p a s s was a p a r t of t h e r a i l w a y roadbed and t h e r e b y excluded by s u b s e c t i o n ( j ) . E x c l u s i o n s and words of l i m i t a t i o n must be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d against the insurer. Northwestern Nat. Cas. C o . v . P h a l e n (1979) I -Mont. -, 597 P.2d 720r 3 6 St.Rep. 1115. An o v e r - p a s s i s n o t commonly u n d e r s t o o d t o be roadbed; s u b s e c t i o n ( j ) d o e s n o t t h e r e f o r e e x c l u d e coverage. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . We Concur: