Court Opinion

ID: 9659666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:51:59.148859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:10.562428
License: Public Domain

Donald L. Corbin, Judge. This appeal is consolidated as the issues in each are identical. Larry Pate, a patient, and Sue Bean, an ambulance attendant traveling with him, were being transported by the Glenwood Rescue Ambulance Service. Keith Mangrum, the ambulance driver, crossed in front of a train and Pate and Bean were killed in the collision. Appellants, executors of Pate and Bean’s estates, filed wrongful death actions against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, the ambulance service’s auto liability insurance carrier, and Western World Insurance Company, its driver and attendants malpractice insurance carrier. The claims against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company were settled. The claims against Western World were heard by the trial court on appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted. We affirm. Western World argued that its insurance policy did not provide coverage for the negligent operation of a vehicle because (1) the policy specifically excluded any liability that would be covered by “a standard automobile public liability policy”, (2) the drivers and attendants malpractice insurance coverage did not cover auto accidents and (3) the policy specifically excluded liability arising from injury or death of any employee that arose out of and in the course of his employment. In response, appellants argued (1) that “standard automobile public liability policy” has no accepted meaning and is an ambiguous term, (2) that driving a patient in the ambulance was a “professional service” covered by the malpractice insurance coverage and (3) that whether Bean was an employee of the insured is a fact question that must be determined before the court can know whether the employee exclusion is applicable. This case turns primarily on the construction of Western World’s policy exclusion which reads: “This policy does not apply: ... to any liability of the insured which would be covered by a standard automobile public liability policy. . .” This provision must be viewed in light of the entire insurance policy. In the policy the named insured is designated “Ambulance Service.” In the space designated “Business of the Named Insured,” the words “Ambulance Service” were inserted. The policy contained spaces for various coverages which were not checked or purchased for coverages including “comprehensive automobile liability insurance.” The policy clearly noted that “ambulance drivers and attendants malpractice liability insurance” was the coverage purchased. Viewing this exclusion provision in relation to the entire policy and applying the pertinent rules of construction, we believe the policy obviously intended to exclude coverage for the operation of a motor vehicle. It is a well settled rule of this Court that in construing contracts of insurance, where a provision of an insurance policy is susceptible of two equally reasonable constructions, one favorable to the insurer and the other to the insured, the latter will be followed. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 231 Ark. 193, 328 S.W.2d 510 (1959). However, different clauses of a contract must be read together and the contract construed §p that all of its parts harmonize, if that is at all possible. Continental Casualty Co. v. Davidson, 250 Ark. 35, 463 S.W.2d 652 (1971). The intention of the parties is to be gathered not from particular words and phrases but from the whole context of the agreement. Fowler v. Unionaid Life Ins. Co., 180 Ark. 140, 20 S.W.2d 611 (1929). The phrase “Standard Automobile Public Liability Policy” standing alone may be subject to different constructions, but not to equally reasonable ones. When examining the entire policy we believe it is clear that liability for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle was excluded. The contract of insurance was clear in its terms as to coverage available. We are not required by the rules of contractual construction to stretch our imaginations to create coverage where none exists. Having affirmed this case on this issue we need not address appellants’ other arguments. Affirmed. Mayfield, J., dissents.