Court Opinion

ID: 9868455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:35:47.931231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.316176
License: Public Domain

*665Oh PETITION to Eeheae.
The appellees have filed herein a petition to rehear. To all intents and purposes this is merely a re-argument of that as originally made. Nothing is here pointed out that we overlooked. No new authority is here cited. This being true we must deny the petition under Rule 32 of this Court as found in 173 Tenn. 886, 887.
It is said in this petition ‘ ‘ that there is no suit on the policy.” We do not nor did we so construe the suit. The original petition makes the insurance company a party defendant and prays for a recovery against the city, “and also from the defendant, Tennessee Odin Insurance Company, under said insurance policy . . . ” The trial judge so treated the action as will he noted by referring to a portion of his finding quoted in our original opinion.
Apparently these petitioners are unable to distinguish the instant case from that of Cornett v. Chattanooga, 165 Tenn. 563, 56 S. W. (2d) 742, 743. There is a marked difference. The Cornett Case was heard on demurrer. The instant case was heard on the facts. In the Cornett Case it was said:
“No principle of estoppel is invoked on that account, for it is not shown that petitioner or her husband had any knowledge of the fact prior to the accident, . . . ”
In the instant case the tenor of the entire record is to the effect, and we find to be a fact, that the policemen of Lafollette including the deceased Woods were notified that they were covered by “Workmen’s Compensation.” The insurance company so carried policemen including them in its policy of coverage.
There was nor is no intention of this Court to invoke herein any kind of philosophy. We are basing our judgment herein on the clear contract intendments between the parties as shown by this record.
For the reasons assigned the petition must he denied.