Court Opinion

ID: 9674323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:26:36.15287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.917633
License: Public Domain

Opinion On Petition To Reheab
Counsel for the insurance company has filed herein a very forceful and dignified petition to rehear. Since this lias been filed we have read and re-read it several times and have re-read the original briefs herein as well as the policy and our original opinion. After doing so, we are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the opinion is a correct interpretation of the clause of the insurance policy as applied to the facts of this particular case.
In the outset we are courteously and forcefully criticized for making this statement: “In arguments and in their briefs both parties have concentrated upon the terms ‘disappearance * * * while being conveyed,’ as *312being determinative of the case,” It is argned that instead of this being the determinative point in this case that really the determinative point in their brief was, and it was forcibly argued before the bar of the Court, “that the policy does not cover ‘disappearance * * * while being conveyed by a messenger’, but rather ‘loss * * # by disappearance * * * while being conveyed by a messenger’.” We think this is merely playing with words which are clearly covered by what we have said in our opinion. In other words, if it had not been lost after it disappeared then there would have been no lawsuit, but by its disappearance and our interpretation of the meaning under such policy it is clearly a loss.
On page 3 of the original brief of the insurance company it is said:
“When Arthur Swindler inadvertently dropped his bank deposit bag, filled with cash, into a mail box, heard the bag hit the bottom of the box, and yet made no effort to guard or remain near said box until it was opened by the postal authorities, and it was discovered that the deposit bag was missing when the mailbox was opened; did this loss occur while bemg conveyed by a messenger, as required under the policy of insurance?
“The Chancellor answered this question ‘NO’. Your appellee respectfully submits that this answer is correct. ’ ’
Then on page 7 of this excellent brief of the insurance company again it is said:
“I. The Chancellor was correct in holding that the loss did not occur ‘while being conveyed by a messenger’ as required by the terms of the policy.
*313“The sole issue before the Court is whether or not Mr. Swindler’s claim falls within the following policy provision:”
Then follows the policy provision which we quoted in our opinion. Following this the brief continues:
“It will be seen that the operative words in the above quoted provision are ‘while being conveyed by a messenger/ ”
Again on page 13 of the insurance company’s brief it is said:
“Simply put, the money had ceased to be conveyed by Mr. Swindler, in his capacity as messenger, the moment he placed his deposit in the mailbox. It would take a terribly strained construction of the policy to extend coverage to one who, through no fault but his own, has ceased to be a messenger conveying property at the time of the loss. Mr. Swindler’s facts place him outside the risk that both parties agreed to have covered. ’ ’
Lastly to further illustrate that in our construction of the original arguments herein and the answers thereto and in our interpretation of the language of the policy, we think we were correct, and on page 17 the insurance company again says of the word “disappearance”:
“Rather the Court is faced with the entirety of the insuring clause, which requires that the loss occur while the property is being conveyed by ® messenger’
We are more than satisfied that in the original briefs and argument made before this Court every conceivable thing was argued and said and authorities cited that is now cited on this petition to rehear, even though some *314of the present argument on the petition to rehear is phrased in a little different manner. It is true in our original opinion we confined ourselves and cited cases in point under this particular state of facts and the clause of the policy which is interpreted, but there must always be a first time otherwise there never would have been any decisions on any question. We are more than satisfied that under the factual situation here and the language of this policy and for the reasons set forth in our original opinion that the policy covers such loss. After having fully considered the petition to rehear we are satisfied that it should be denied, which is done.