Court Opinion

ID: 9868470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:37:07.135247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.802887
License: Public Domain

*301On Petition to Rehear.
Petition to rehear is filed on behalf of Maryland Casualty Company, seeking to review the judgments rendered against it in behalf of G-. L.. Harrison and Emma Harrison, under its second assignment of error, which is as follows: ; ¡ ¡ i ~í j
“The Trial Court erred in rendering judgments against the Defendant Maryland Casualty Company aggregating $0000 in the cases of Gr. L. Harrison and Emma Harrison because both of said suits are predicated upon injuries sustained by one person,' and because the policy of insurance issued by said defendant limits the liability of said defendant to $5000 for injuries sustained by one person, the aggregate of said verdicts being $1000 in excess of the liability of said defendant under the terms of its policy.”
This was one of the assignments of error made by the Maryland Casualty Company in the Court of Appeals, to which court the appeal in error was granted by the circuit court. The Court of Appeals transferred the case to this court, because of the constitutional question involved, considered in the opinion heretofore filed. At the bar of this court argument was directed only at the-constitutional question, and in the brief of the plaintiffs in error, filed in this court, counsel stated that argument was so limited on the assumption that “this court will not care to pass upon the other errors assigned.” It is urged for the defendants in error that this was a waiver of the other assignments of error, but we do not think so. The assumption of the plaintiffs in error was incorrect. Jurisdiction of the appeal in error having become fixed in this court ^because of the constitutional question presented by the appeal, the jurisdiction of this court *302extends to all questions properly made by assignments of error. Sucb has been the practice.
The assignments of error to which, the petition to rehear is directed was overruled in the opinion heretofore filed by this court, because the bill of exceptions was not properly made a part of the record, and the court conceived that the assignment of error was dependent entirely upon the bill of exceptions. The petition to rehear, however, directs the attention of the court to the fact that the declarations of G. L. Harrison and Emma Harrison recite that the contract of insurance, which is the basis of the suit against the Casualty Company, contains the limitation relied upon in the assignment of error, and that the pleadings, therefore, show that a recovery was awarded in excess of the true liability of the Casualty Company.
The court is of the opinion that this contention of the Casualty Company is well made, and that the petition to rehear should be sustained, and' the judgments heretofore entered modified accordingly.
The declaration of G. L. Harrison describes the insurance policy or bond executed by the Maryland Casualty Company as “payable in the principal sum of not to exceed $5000' for any one injury or damage to property;” and the declaration of Emma Harrison contains the same averment.
The declaration of G. L. Harrison affirmatively shows that it was predicated on a personal injury sustained by his wife, Emma Harrison, which, injury formed the basis of the cause of action stated in the declaration filed by her. There was a joint trial in the circuit court, resulting in a verdict for Mrs. Harrison in the sum of $9000, and in favor of G. L. Harrison in the sum of *303$1000. There was a joint motion for a new trial, of which the sixth ground was as follows:
“Because the policy of insurance which was introduced in evidence provides that the limit of liability of defendant Maryland Casualty Company on account of one person injured or killed shall not exceed $5000', and1 the jury returned verdicts against said defendant based upon injuries to plaintiff, Emma Harrison for $9000 in the Emma Harrison case and $1000 in the case of her husband, G. L. Harrison, the aggregate of said verdicts being $5000 in excess of the liability of said defendant under the terms of said policy.”
The judgment rendered by the circuit court sustained this ground of the motion for a new trial, to the extent that the judgment in favor of Emma Harrison was limited to $5000 as against the Maryland Casualty Company, the judgment reciting that this was “the amount of its contract liability as sued upon.”
We think the technical record shows that the causes of action prosecuted by G. L. Harrison and Emma Harrison were founded upon a single injury, sustained by Mrs. Harrison, with damage resulting to both, and that the aggregate amount of the recovery awarded both against the Casualty Company should be limited to the amount for which it bound1 itself by its contract of insurance. The limitation of liability to a fixed amount “for one injury” in an insurance contract of this kind imposes the limitation upon all claims for damage, by whomsoever made, arising out of personal injuries to a single person. Ravenswood Hospital v. Maryland Casualty Co., 280 Ill.; 103, 111, affirming same case below as reported in 203 Ill. App., 343,
*304The two suits were instituted at the same time, were-prosecuted together as joint actions, and judgments were entered at the same time. Neither action is entitled to priority over the other, and we think that both judgments should be reduced pro- rata so that the aggregate will not exceed the amount of the contract liability of the Casualty Company.
Judgment will accordingly be entered reducing the judgment heretofore awarded in favor of Mrs. Emma Harrison as against the Maryland Casualty Company to $4166.67; and reducing.the judgment awarded Gr. L. Harrison as against the Maryland Casualty Company to $833.33.