Title: Travelers Ins. Co. v. GENERAL REFRIGERATION & APP. CO.

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

218 So. 2d 724 (1969) The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. GENERAL REFRIGERATION & APPLIANCE COMPANY, Inc. No. 45160. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 3, 1969. John M. Roach, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, Jackson, for appellant. *725 Ray, Lee & Moore, Jackson, for appellee. ROBERTSON, Justice: This suit involves the interpretation and construction of certain provisions of a liability insurance policy issued by The Travelers Insurance Company, appellant, to General Refrigeration & Appliance Company, Inc., appellee. The appellee called on the appellant to defend a tort action brought against the appellee and others in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. The appellant refused to defend on the ground that the allegations of the bill of complaint filed in the chancery court did not state a cause of action against the appellee that the appellant was required to defend under the terms of the policy. The appellee was thus forced to employ attorneys to defend the suit. There was long and protracted litigation; the suit was successfully defended; and the end result was that there was no judgment against the appellee for damages. The attorneys charged their client, the appellee $3,187.50 for successfully defending the suit. The appellee paid the fee and brought suit in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County to recover the $3,187.50 paid. By agreement, the judge tried the case without a jury and found for the appellee. The policy was for a one-year term, from October 1, 1959, to October 1, 1960. The policy, on its face under Item 3B, styled "Property Damage Liability," shows a premium of $20.73 opposite the subhead "1. Premises Operations." The limits of liability listed were $5,000 for each accident and $25,000 aggregate. Under Item 4, styled "Description of Hazards," and under the subhead "1. Premises Operations," there was typed "SEE SCHEDULE 3931." Schedule 3931, attached as an endorsement to the policy, provided: On Page 2, the policy provides: *726 In the chancery court suit, the appellee was charged with having negligently installed a cutoff switch in a fold-back electric oven in the home of complainants. The appellant contends that this installation or repair work falls within the following provision of the policy: Appellant says no premium was charged and no coverage provided for "Products Completed Operations." With this contention we cannot agree. It would appear that the charge of negligent installation in the bill of complaint falls within the terms of Schedule 3931, wherein under the heading "Description of Hazards" there was contained this language: Premiums were specifically listed opposite these hazards. The hazards covered and premiums charged were specially typed in Schedule 3931; the schedule was then attached to the policy in explanation of, and as an addition to, the printed coverage. This addition was specifically referred to on the face of the policy with the typed words: "SEE SCHEDULE 3931." It could be said that the typed provisions and printed provisions appear to conflict with each other. In that situation the typed provisions would take precedence over the printed. Then, too, a basic rule of construction is that the ambiguous portions of a policy are construed more strictly against the one preparing the policy. We said in Key Life Insurance Co. of South Carolina v. Tharp, 253 Miss. 774, 179 So. 2d 555 (1965): And again in Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Evins, 199 So. 2d 238 (Miss. 1967): The language of the policy itself covering the defense of suits and claims is broad and strong. The pertinent portions bear repeating: The insurer acts at its peril when it refuses to defend a suit against its insured. It would be the better part of valor to defend doubtful cases of coverage and to resolve the doubts when the battle with the claimant is over. See Mavar Shrimp & Oyster Co. v. U.S.F. & G. Co., 187 So. 2d 871 (Miss. 1966), and Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Logan, 238 Miss. 580, 119 So. 2d 268 (1960). We feel that under the ambiguous terms of the policy and attached Schedule 3931, as to coverage; and the strong and broad language of the policy on the duty to defend; the appellant wrongfully refused to defend appellee and thereby the appellant as insurer became liable for attorney's fees incurred and paid in the successful defense of the chancery suit. The judgment of the circuit court is, therefore, affirmed. Affirmed. ETHRIDGE, C.J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON, and SMITH, JJ., concur.