Md. Cas. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n
Before: Shaw
Synopsis
Workmen’s Compensation Act—Review op Award—Irregularities or Errors in Procedure.—The granting by the Industrial Accident Commission of a rehearing, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, in violation of its own rule, requiring such evidence to be set out in detail in the application for a rehearing, and the taking of further evidence without solicitation from either party, being mere matters of procedure, and not going to the jurisdiction of the commission to make awards, are not grounds upon which the supreme court can vacate an award.
Id.—Incompetent Evidence.—The supreme court cannot set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Commission because of the admission of incompetent evidence, provided there is enough competent evidence to uphold the same.
2d.—Insurance—Construction op Policy—“General Farm Work, Excluding Operation op Farm Machinery.”—An insurance policy binding the insurer to pay all sums due from an employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Law because of any injury to employees “engaged in general farm work, excluding the operation of farm machinery,”1 covered an injury causing the death of an employee who was struck by a bar attached to a disk harrow, which, in the course of farming operations, was being pulled in the nighttime by an engine, it appearing that the deceased was not operating the engine but was standing in the field and using a lantern to guide the engineer who operated the machine.
Id.—Uncertainty in Policy—Construction Against Insurer.—If in . such ease the words “excluding the operation of farm machinery” are of uncertain import, then, under section 1654 of the Civil Code, the contract is to be construed most strongly against the insurer, who drew the policy and caused the uncertainty to exist.
SHAW, J. This is a proceeding in certiorari under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, to review an award made by the Industrial Accident Commission against the Maryland Casualty Company in favor of Huida Y. Dobson, as compensation for the death of her husband, alleged to have occurred from an accident while in the employ of George C. Ellis. The award was made against the Maryland Casualty Company as insurance carrier for Ellis. Its claim is that the policy of insurance does not cover the accident which caused the death of Dobson.
The insurance policy was issued to Ellis by the Casualty Company of America. Afterward, and before the happening of the accident, the Maryland Casualty Company, by agreement with the original insurer, assumed all liability upon the policy and Ellis accepted it as the insurance carrier. By the terms of the policy the insurer agreed to pay all sums due from Ellis under the Workmen’s Compensation Law [Stats. 1911, p. 796] because of any injury to those of his employees mentioned in the- policy. The sixth clause provides as follows: “ This policy shall cover only employees of the employer, legally employed, whose remuneration is included in said declaration, but nothing in this policy shall be construed as excluding any employee who may become entitled to compensation under the provisions of said Workmen’s Compensation Law, and all amendments thereto.” The declarations referred to are contained in a document attached to and made a part of the policy. The employees whose remuneration is therein stated, that are here involved, are therein described as those engaged in 1 ‘ General farm work excluding the operation of farm machinery (no blasting).” ,
The complainant asks that the award be annulled upon the following grounds: 1. That the commission granted a rehearing to Ellis on the ground of newly discovered evidence, in violation of its own rule requiring such evidence to be set out in detail in the application for a rehearing. 2. In taking further testimony without solicitation from either party. 3. In admitting and considering incompetent testimony relating to the meaning of the policy of insurance in question. 4. In determining that under said policy of insurance the ' plaintiff as insurance carrier for Ellis is liable to pay compensation for the death of said Dobson.
[493]With respect to the first and second grounds we need only say that irregularities, or errors in mere matters of procedure, do not go to the jurisdiction of the commission to make awards, and are not grounds upon which this court can vacate an award. These grounds relate entirely to matters of procedure.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)