Title: Fisher v. California Insurance Co.

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed January 22, 1964.
*377 Robert Clapperton, Portland, argued the cause and submitted a brief for appellant.
James F. Spiekerman, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey & Williamson, Portland, and James B. O'Hanlon, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and LUSK, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
O'CONNELL, J.
This is an action by plaintiff insured against defendant insurer to recover $1,157.25 under an insurance contract covering plaintiff's automobile for damage caused by collision or upset. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant. The case was heard by the court without a jury.
The damage occurred when a heavy wind caused a tree to fall upon plaintiff's parked car. The principal question on appeal is whether the occurrence was a "collision" within the meaning of the policy. The face of the policy contained the following item:
Item 3. The insurance afforded is only with respect to such and so many of the following coverages as are indicated by specific premium charge or charges. The limit of the company's liability against each such coverage shall be as stated herein, subject to all the terms of this policy having reference thereto.
It is apparent from the above item that plaintiff is not covered under either (A) comprehensive loss *378 or (E) loss resulting from windstorm, hail, earthquake or explosion.
Plaintiff bases his claim on the coverage for collision or upset which is described in the policy as follows:
Defendant takes the position that damage to a parked automobile when struck by a tree blown down by a strong wind is not within the coverage of a policy providing for payment of damage to an automobile "caused by collision of the automobile with another object." In support of this interpretation of Coverage B, defendant calls attention to three other coverage clauses of the policy:
Defendant argues that all of the coverage clauses must be read together in deriving the contractual intent of the parties. If the clauses are read together it is clear that damage by "collision" does not include damage by windstorm or damage by falling objects because Coverage A specifically provides that loss caused by falling objects or by windstorm "shall not be deemed loss caused by collision or upset."
Defendant regards the policy as presenting to plaintiff a choice of coverage  he could limit his coverage to collision or upset under coverage B or, by paying an added premium, expand the coverage to include damage by windstorm or from falling objects under other coverage clauses. Defendant argues that since plaintiff elected to pay only for collision coverage he is not entitled to coverage under the other clauses.
Plaintiff would treat each of the coverage clauses separately in interpreting the contract. His argument is summarized in this statement taken from his brief:
1, 2. We are of the opinion that the policy must be read in the manner urged by defendant. Ambiguous provisions in an insurance policy are to be resolved in favor of the insured. This does not mean, however, that insurance contracts are not subject to the same rules of construction as other contracts. Contracts, including insurance contracts, are to be construed as a whole, not as a congeries of separate parts. We do not think it is reasonable to say that the insured is required to read only that part of a policy which directly deals with the coverage he seeks. The language in Saul v. *381 Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 173 Kan 679, 250 P2d 819 at 822 (1952) is particularly appropriate:
3. The reasoning urged by plaintiff that the clauses of the contract be interpreted separately has been accepted elsewhere.[1] However, we feel that the construction we have adopted is the more reasonable. We hold, therefore, that the damage suffered in this case was not caused by collision and is not covered by the policy.
*382 Plaintiff also contends that defendant is estopped to raise the defense urged here because it had denied payment of plaintiff's claim on a ground other than that asserted after action was brought. We see nothing inconsistent in defendant's position before and after the institution of this action.
The judgment is affirmed.
[1]  Comment, 24 U Chi L Rev 170, 173 (1956). The author would, however, reach the same conclusion reached by this court in the instant fact situation. He comments that it is reasonable to assume that "in obtaining collision coverage an insured intends to insure against losses due to `accidents' and not against losses due to natural catastrophes."