Case Name: FOOTE MINERAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1960-04-22
Citations: 277 F.2d 452
Docket Number: No. 13970
Parties: FOOTE MINERAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 277
Pages: 452–455

Head Matter:
FOOTE MINERAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 13970.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 22, 1960.
M. W. Egerton, Joseph A. McAfee, of Egerton, McAfee, Armstead & Davis, Knoxville, Tenn., on brief, for appellant.
Charles E. McNabb and Stuart F. Dye, of Kramer, Dye, McNabb & Greenwood, Knoxville, Tenn., on brief, for appellee.
Before MARTIN and WEICK, Circuit Judges, and HOLLAND, Senior District J udge.

Opinion:
MARTIN and WEICK, Circuit Judges.
In this action brought by appellant under an insurance policy issued by appellee, recovery of damages was sought for alleged loss sustained by injury to a generator and motor. The United States District Judge dismissed the complaint.
The case was tried without the intervention of a jury. There was no dispute as to the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff-appellant as the result of an accident causing injury to its motor and generator; but there was sharp issue between the parties upon the question of liability.
The policy issued by the appellee covered in express terms loss from an accident occurring while the generator "is in use or connected ready for use ." The policy contained an express exception from liability while the "object is undergoing an insulation breakdown, test, or is being repaired or dried out." [Emphasis supplied.]
In a carefully prepared memorandum opinion, embracing findings and conclusions and a detailed description of the machinery and the use to which it was being put when the accident occurred, the District Judge found, in summation, that the generator had been "purchased and installed for the sole purposes of (1) generating and (2) transmitting direct current for use in manufacturing manganese metal, and it was not in use or connected ready for use at the time of the accident which caused the damage that is the subject of this suit." He concluded, moreover, that the generator was being "repaired" at the time of the accident and that the aforementioned exclusion provision of the policy therefore precluded recovery for the loss.
For the reasons stated by the trial judge, Honorable Robert L. Taylor, in his well-reasoned opinion [reported in E.D. Tenn., 173 F.Supp. 925], the judgment of the district court is affirmed.