National Automobile Insurance v. Industrial Accident Commission

YORK, P. J. Petitioner insurance carrier by means of a writ of review seeks the annulment of an award of the Industrial Accident Commission granting compensation to an injured employee and ordering it to be paid by petitioner.

At the hearing held April 20, 1944, the following facts were admitted:

“1. Sidney Schiff, born September 3, 1911, was employed December 3, 1943, as a linotype operator, at Los Angeles, California, by Aaron FefEerman and Myer FefEerman, co-partners, doing business as Mercury Printing Company, a co-partnership, whose insurance carrier was National Automobile Insurance Company, a corporation, under a limited policy.

“2. On said date said employee sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment, while riding upon a motorcycle, resulting in fracture to the right side of the pelvis, laceration of right thigh and fracture of fourth metacarpal bone in the right major hand. . . .

“3. All medical treatment furnished by applicant, none by defendants. Defendants admit liability for the reasonable medical expense, to be determined subsequently upon the filing of itemized bills in duplicate approved by this Commission, if the parties are unable to adjust the same out of court.

“4. Earnings, $51.00 a week.

“5. No compensation has been paid.

“6. Said employee has been temporarily totally disabled from December 3, 1943, to April 20, 1944, and will be disabled indefinitely thereafter. ’ ’

The issue presented at the hearing was the extent to which the employer was covered by the policy issued by petitioner insurance carrier. At that time the referee before whom the matter was heard, made the statement: “We have this problem, Mr. Feiferman. It is a misdemeanor to be uninsured. You have a limited policy here, so you will have to either secure full coverage within ten days, or secure a certificate of consent to self-insure, because you see you are uninsured. ’ ’ To this Mr. Feiferman replied: “I didn’t realize that. The Referee: And you are subject to a civil suit. Case submitted. . . . Mr. FefEerman: May I ask a question ? Does that mean if one of my employees is doing something other than what he is specifically employed for, then that constitutes no coverage ? The Referee: No. Your limitation is that he is either doing house-to-house distributing of hand bills, or he is using a [180]