Court Opinion

ID: 9669555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:59:50.019699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:40.423474
License: Public Domain

Gillespie, J.
concurring:
I concur in all that is decided in the opinion but do not desire my concurrence to be construed as a holding that Polk was an additional insured under the terms of the Canal policy.
I do not think that the injuries to Benton arose out of “the ownership, maintenance, or use” of the truck. The unloading clause does not make Polk an insured here. Polk was operating a crane belonging to Mississippi Steel Corporation and the ownership, use and maintenance of the truck had nothing to do with the object falling on Benton’s head. The truck was passively sitting there and played no part directly in the injury. My views that Polk was not an additional insured may be regarded as an additional reason for my concurrence in the results.