Court Opinion

ID: 9724612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:04:34.648591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:03.051582
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Respondent, in applying for a rehearing, contends that there is variance between some of the court’s statements and the record. Reviewing the record, we find that there were no misstatements. We explain briefly.
1. Respondent states that the reference to the answer to the interrogatories “which assured plaintiff that respondent’s insurance policy was applicable to this case” is inaccurate because the answer, respondent asserts, was: “At this time there is no dispute as to the coverage under this policy.” Nowhere in the record does the quotation given by respondent appear. *245The interrogatories were not a part of the record, but at the hearing counsel for appellant informed the judge that the answer to an interrogatory is: “There is no reason why this policy doesn’t apply to this accident.” To this, counsel for respondent replied, “That is correct, Your Honor.”
2. Respondent argues that the transcript makes it clear that the application for the elevator permit was not made by Western Title but by Federal Insurance Company. It is true that Federal employed a firm of elevator inspectors to apply for and obtain the elevator permits. According to the testimony of an officer of Federal, this was done because its policy covered Western for liability occurring as a result of elevator accidents at the premises. But the permit was issued in the name of Western Title and the permit was sent to that company, as appears from a letter sent from Western Title to the agent for the syndicate enclosing elevator permit of the Division of Industrial Safety and a reinspection report for each of the three elevators located in the building at 830 Market Street. When Federal Insurance Company received a report from the retained inspectors that the general condition of the elevators was satisfactory, the report was also addressed to Western Title.
Christian, J., was of the opinion that the petition for rehearing should be granted.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 17, 1971.