Wilson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.

BEASLY, J.,

pro tem.

The essential facts of this case, as they appear to us, are very simple. The defendant, on July 24, 1906, wrote for the plaintiff’s testator, James A. Wilson, and for the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, what is called an “Owner’s Contingent Liability” accident insurance policy. It was provided therein that the defendant company “hereby agrees to indemnify Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company and James A. Wilson . . . against loss from the liability

imposed by law

upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries or death accident-ally suffered while this policy is in force by any person or persons during the continuance of the work described in the schedule,

and resulting from the negligence of any contractor or subcontractor

engaged in such work.” The schedule referred to contained the following statement: “All work under

[246]

supervision of James- A. Wilson who lets contract and does carpenter and mason work himself. This policy covers con-' traeted work only.” This provision was inserted for the purpose of bringing Wilson within the terms of this owners’ policy. The building involved belonged to the telephone company, not to Wilson. One of the contracts on the building was let to the Roebling Construction Company. ' On the fifteenth day of November, 1906, and while this latter company was performing work -on the building, one of its employees negligently let a heavy plank fall from the window of the building into the street. The plank struck the foot of O. R. Cole, who was passing along the street at the time, and crushed three of his toes. Cole recovered judgment against Wilson. Wilson paid the judgment and sued the defendant on the policy. The trial court decided against him, and he appeals from the judgment.

A great many questions are argued in the briefs of this case and were presented at the oral argument; but it seems to us that the answer to a single question, if in the negative, is decisive of the case, and that question is, whether this accident is covered by the policy.