Court Opinion

ID: 9648600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:29:25.595567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:03.668294
License: Public Domain

*901ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing they have misinterpreted the meaning sought to be conveyed in the court’s opinion. Probably the misinterpretation was caused by the inability of the writer to properly express the principle involved. We held the only things to be considered were the petition on file in Cause No. 1694 and the insurance policy. The policy required, as shown in the opinion, the appellant was to defend any suit against the insured alleging such matters as afforded by the policy. Any and all insurance coverage under the policy was as specified under Divisions 1 and 3. We held the pleadings in Cause No. 1694 did not present a cause of action which the insurance company was required to defend under the terms of the policy as provided under Divisions 1 and 3. We further held: “These provisions protect the appellees as to damages happening at their place of business and not for damages happening to someone else caused by the appellees at some other place as alleged in third party’s suit.” If we had intended to hold the policy did not cover damages happening to someone else caused by the appellees at some other place, we would never have added “as alleged in third party’s suit.” Instead, we would have said these provisions protect the appellees as to damages happening at their place of business but not for damages happening to someone else caused by the appellees at some other place. We considered this as further explanation of the preceding sentence where we held the pleadings in Cause No. 1694 did not present a cause of action which the insurance company was required to defend under the terms of the policy as provided under Divisions 1 and 3.
As further explanation of the holding of the court, the final paragraph provides as follows: “Since there were no pleadings in Cause No. 1694 as to require this appellant to answer and defend that suit under its policy of insurance, it was under no obligation to do so.”
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled.