Opinion ID: 875784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: effective 4-7-70

Text: The appellant denied liability asserting that neither of the two counts of respondent's complaint states a claim upon which relief could be granted, denied the respondent a defense in the Alaska cause of action and plead six affirmative defenses in its answer. The issue before the Court is whether or not the lower court erred in granting a partial summary judgment against the appellants ordering them to defend the respondent in the Alaska suit. The appellant relies on several contentions stressing two in particular. One, that the insurance companies are entitled to fair consideration and should not be prejudiced because they are insurance companies. As to this contention we find no merit and will not further discuss same. Two, while they concede that the Alaska complaint indicates that certain goods (trophies) were accepted by respondent for taxidermy purposes, and some were transported by public transportation to Clark in Alaska, that nevertheless the coverage is strictly limited by paragraph 3 and that the only risk insured against is some direct loss or damage caused by one of the enumerated perils (a) through (n), and that there was no allegation in the complaint of any direct loss or damage caused by any of the enumerated perils or risks. We find no merit to this contention. Considering the allegations of the Alaskan complaint and the relevant portions of the Safeco policy we find the trial court did not err in its conclusion ordering Safeco to defend in the Alaska litigation. It is to the allegations of the Alaskan complaint that we look to determine whether or not there is a duty to defend. The appellant has a duty to defend where the complaint sets forth facts which are a part of the covered risk. The rule on the duty to defend is set forth in 50 A.L.R.2d 506-7: Where a complaint alleges facts which represent a risk outside the coverage of the policy but also avers facts which, if proved, represent a risk covered, the insurer is under a duty to defend.    (Cases cited.) Here, while the Alaskan complaint isn't a textbook model, it does allege that the respondent breached his agreement with Clark in that it alleges that respondent either misplaced, destroyed or otherwise mishandled Clark's trophies. Section II of the Safeco policy provides for liability insurance and must be considered in determining the duty to defend. This policy was sold covering a 3 year period and was effective as concerns the various acts complained of by Clark. Too, Section II includes an additional declaration dated April 17, 1970, and this declaration with the heading Description and Location of Insured Property has typed upon it the words, Bailees Customer. The first page of the Bailees Customers Endorsement contains the following language with respect to the coverage. 1. COVERAGE: This form covers on all goods or articles accepted by the insured for cleaning, renovating, pressing, dyeing, repairing or laundering, the property of his customers, while contained on the premises occupied by the insured, or in the custody of his agents or branch stores, provided these locations are scheduled or endorsed hereon, and while being transported to and from the premises of his customers or branch stores or agents. (Emphasis supplied.) Clark's complaint alleging that the respondent misplaced, destroyed or mishandled the trophies either on the premises or in making improper shipments are risks contemplated in the coverage. In addition, it should be noted that the Bailee Customers and Laundries and Drycleaners Form sold to respondent after consultation with the appellants' agents provides: 3. THIS FORM INSURES, except as hereinafter provided, against direct loss or damages caused by:    ( l ) Transportation risks by public carriers or mail service; (m) Aircraft or vehicles; (n) Confusion of goods resulting from any of the foregoing perils. Taking these words of the agreement and relating them to the subject matter about which the parties contracted it is obvious that they contracted with respect to respondent's business and not some unrelated business. See Park Saddle Horse Co. v. Royal Indem. Co., 81 Mont. 99, 261 P. 880; Independent M. & C. Co. v. Aetna L.I. Co., 68 Mont. 152, 216 P. 1109. Despite appellants' argument to the contrary there are elements of ambiguity in the policy. The additional declaration and Bailee Customers Endorsement relate to the liability section of the policy, but the Bailee Customers Endorsement form relates to the Laundry and Dry Cleaning business not the taxidermy business. When an ambiguity arises as noted above the insured is entitled to the benefit of any doubt. This Court in Eby v. Foremost Insurance Co., 141 Mont. 62, 66, 374 P.2d 857, provided the rule for the construction of an ambiguous insurance policy:    But if the terms of the policy are ambiguous, obscure, or open to different constructions, the construction most favorable to the insured or other beneficiary must prevail. That general rule applies with particular force to an ambiguous or doubtful provision in a policy or in an endorsement attached thereto which attempts to exclude from coverage liability in certain circumstances. See also Johnson v. Equitable Insurance Co., 142 Mont. 128, 381 P.2d 778; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 150 Mont. 182, 433 P.2d 795. The appellant argues several affirmative defenses which we find are without merit. Despite Safeco's contention to the contrary the Alaska complaint does allege facts within the perils enumerated entitling the respondent to a defense by the appellants. We are not here concerned, nor was the trial judge with the outcome of the cause in Alaska for it may well be that Safeco is not liable for the alleged losses. The relevant consideration here is that on its face the complaint clearly alleges matters within Safeco's responsibility; and, the district court properly granted a partial summary judgment directing Safeco to defend. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. JAMES T. HARRISON, C.J., and CASTLES and HASWELL, JJ., concur.