Opinion ID: 1689844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Direct Action Against Travelers.

Text: Appellant Travelers Indemnity Company can be named properly as a party in this action only if the Hy-Hoe excavation unit is a motor vehicle pursuant to the direct-action statutes, sec. 260.11 (1) and sec. 204.30 (4). The policy contains the usual no-action clause. Paragraph 3 (b) declares that unless otherwise stated, the word automobile is deemed to mean motor vehicle. Subparagraph (3) then eliminates the Hy-Hoe from this category by declaring: The following described equipment shall be deemed an automobile while towed by or carried on an automobile as above defined solely for purposes of transportation or while being operated solely for locomotion, but not otherwise: if of the non-crawler type, any power crane or shovel, ditch or trench digger; . . . Respondent urges that the premium provisions of the policy support the conclusion that the Hy-Hoe unit was considered a motor vehicle like the truck itself. A rider to the policy specifically describes the truck and excavating unit. Premiums are extended for four of the seven coverages, namely: Bodily Injury Liability, Property Damage Liability, Comprehensive, and Collision. A typewritten notation Truck only appears in a box labeled Rate . The double asterisks indicate that the rate is Applicable to such of the Comprehensive, Fire, Theft and Windstorm coverages as may be afforded with respect to the automobile. Respondent contends that the coverage on the truck is thus limited to the four named coverages while the Hy-Hoe is afforded protection under all seven categories. Appellant contends that the words Truck only indicate that the designated coverage applies only to the truck and that there is no coverage under any category for the Hy-Hoe. The rider is ambiguous. Resolving ambiguities in favor of the insured, we believe that an entirely different construction is most reasonable, namely, that the Collision coverage is limited to the truck while both the truck and the Hy-Hoe are covered under the other three named categories. In any event, however, this construction does not mean that the Hy-Hoe is deemed an automobile or motor vehicle under the policy. Even if the policy did not expressly provide that the Hy-Hoe was not a motor vehicle, the present facts would nonetheless be controlled by Smedley v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co. [1] Smedley involved an action for personal injuries caused by the negligent operation of a hydraulic crane which was mounted on a truck chassis. In discussing whether or not the operation of the crane was the operation of a motor vehicle within the meaning of sec. 260.11 (1), Stats., the court said: It is undoubtedly true if the unit were being driven on a public street for the purposes of locomotion, it would be considered a motor vehicle. In the record there are several photographs and a lithograph of this unit. Arbitrarily classifying it either as a truck or a hydrocrane without reference to a particular use does not solve the problem. When the unit is in locomotion for the purpose of transporting the crane, it takes on the essential aspects of a motor vehicle for some purposes. However, after the unit arrives at its destination, the mobile aspect ceases and the crane is operated as an independent immobile unit. The test under the statutes is whether at the time of the accident the unit is being used, managed, controlled, or operated as a motor vehicle in the ordinary meaning of those words. At the time of the accident the unit was stationary, the crane was stabilized, supported, and rendered immobile by outriggers. The unit was not then used as a motor vehicle. Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the crane, not the operation of the truck. We do not believe such use of the unit is within the meaning of the negligent operation, management or control of a motor vehicle as used in sec. 260.11, Stats. [2] A similar result was reached in Norton v. Huisman [3] where the plaintiff was injured by a rod which was connected to a self-powered sewer-cleaning machine which in turn was attached to a truck chassis. Respondent argues that Smedley and Norton are not applicable because in the instant case the truck was positioned in the street abutting the Neumann property. The amended complaint contains an allegation to this effect. But Smedley and Norton both hold that where the negligence is in the operation of independent machines they are not motor vehicles within the meaning of sec. 260.11 (1), or sec. 204.30 (4), Stats., and direct action against the insurance company is not permitted. The fact that here the truck may actually have been situated on the street is not decisive where the operation of the independent machine is the alleged cause of the accident. Norton implicitly holds to this effect since in that case the truck upon which the sewer-cleaning device was mounted was always parked in the street. To connect the accident with the operation of the truck as distinguished from the Hy-Hoe unit and thus to permit direct action against Travelers, respondent asserted for the first time on oral argument that the gas main could have been severed by the pressure exerted when the truck moved back and forth over the filled-in trench to pack down the dirt. There is no specific allegation to this effect in the complaints or in the stipulated facts. Even if the plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaints to make this allegation, if that indeed is their theory of one alternative way in which the accident occurred, any such negligence on the part of Heuser would not be covered by the policy as hereinafter discussed and thus joinder of Travelers would be unavailing. The crucial question, whether direct action against Travelers is permitted or not, is whether the Travelers' policy covered the alleged negligence of respondent.