Home/Wisconsin Supreme Court/Continental Casualty Co. v. Woerpel

Continental Casualty Co. v. Woerpel

208 N.W. 882, 190 Wis. 122, 45 A.L.R. 1323, 1926 Wisc. LEXIS 170
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedMay 11, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 208 N.W. 882 (Continental Casualty Co. v. Woerpel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Continental Casualty Co. v. Woerpel, 208 N.W. 882, 190 Wis. 122, 45 A.L.R. 1323, 1926 Wisc. LEXIS 170 (Wis. 1926).

Opinion

Owen, J.

This action was brought by appellant to recover premiums claimed to have been earned and due it under a policy of workmen’s compensation insurance issued by it to the respondents May 17, 1920. The question is whether the policy covered operations conducted by the respondents not specifically mentioned in the policy.

It appears that prior to the issuance of the policy respondents contemplated the erection of a garage at Dodgeville. They proposed to excavate the basement by day labor and to let contracts for the erection of the superstructure. This plan was carried out, but the contractors for the erection of the superstructure carried no workmen’s compensation insurance on- their employees. Respondents were therefore liable for compensation to the employees of said contractors under the provisions of sec. 102.06, Stats. The appellant claims that its policy indemnified respondents for such compensation ; that it would have been liable for any compensation that might have been awarded to the employees of said contractors, and that the premiums payable by the respondents upon such policy should be readjusted so as to include as a basis the wages paid by the contractors to their employees.

The policy was issued prior to the passage of ch. 451, Laws of 1921, which provides that such policies “shall be construed to grant full coverage of all liability of the assured under and according to the provisions of sections 2394 — 3 to 2394 — 31, inclusive, notwithstanding any agreement of the parties to the contrary unless the industrial commission has theretofore by written order specifically consented to the issuance of a contract of insurance on a part of such liability,” which provision now appears as a part of sec. 102.31, Stats. It will therefore be necessary to examine the policy to determine whether it can be construed as covering the employees of the contractors. In doing so, we have in mind certain provisions of the workmen’s compensation [124]*124act in force at the time of the issuance of said policy, urged upon our attention by appellant, such as the provision to be found in sec. 102.31 that every contract for the insurance of workmen’s compensation shall be deemed to be made subject to the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act, and that provisions in said policy inconsistent with the provisions of the compensation act are void; also the provision that one under the act is liable to the employees of a contractor who does not carry workmen’s compensation insurance as required by the act, as well as the penalty provided for failure to carry insurance as required by the act. It is understood that if respondents did not have insurance covering the workmen of the subcontractors, and if they were not exempted by the industrial commission from carrying such insurance, they would be subject to penalties provided by the workmen’s compensation act, and that a situation is presented where the policy should be construed to cover such employees, if possible, on the principle that a person is presumed to have taken the course which is in accord with the law rather than a course which is in direct violation of it.

By the terms of the policy the appellant agrees:

“To pay promptly to any person entitled thereto, under the workmen’s compensation law and in the manner therein provided, the entire amount of any sum due and all instal-ments thereof as they become due.
“(1) To such person because of the obligation for compensation for any such injury imposed upon or accepted by this employer under such of certain statutes, as may be applicable thereto, cited and described in an indorsement attached to this policy, each of which statutes is herein referred to as the workmen’s compensation law, and
“(2) For the benefit of such person the proper cost of whatever medical, surgical, nurse or hospital services, medical or surgical apparatus or appliances and medicines, or, in the event of fatal injury, whatever funeral expenses are [125]*125required by the provisions of such workmen’s compensation law.”

Plainly this amounts to full coverage, unless the sweeping liability thereby assumed is limited by other provisions of the policy. In looking for such other provisions we note these:

“Five. This agreement shall apply to such injuries sustained by any person or persons employed by this employer whose entire remuneration shall be included in the total actual remuneration for which provision is hereinafter made, upon which remuneration the premium for this policy is to be computed and adjusted.”
“Six. This agreement shall apply to such injuries so sustained by reason of the business operations described in said declarations, which, for the purpose of this insurance, shall include all operations necessary, incident, or appurtenant thereto, or connected therewith, whether such operations are conducted at the work places defined and described in said declarations or elsewhere in connection with, or in relation to, such work places.”
“A. The premium is based upon the entire remuneration earned during the policy period by all employees of this employer engaged in the business operations described in said declarations, together with all operations necessary, incident, or appurtenant thereto or connected therewith, whether conducted at such work places or elsewhere, in connection therewith or in relation thereto. . , . If any operations as above defined are undertaken by this employer, but are not described or rated in said declarations, this employer agrees to pay the premium thereon at the time of the final adjustment of the premium in accordance with condition C hereof at the rates and in compliance with the rules of the manual of rates in use by the company upon the date of issue of this policy. At the end of the policy period the actual amount of the remuneration earned by employees during such period shall be exhibited to the company as provided in condition C hereof and the earned premium adjusted in accordance therewith at the rates and under the conditions herein specified. If the earned premium thus [126]*126computed is greater than the advance premium paid, this employer shall immediately pay the additional amount to the company; if less, the company shall return to this employer the unearned portion, but, in any event, the company shall retain the minimum premium stated in said declarations.”

The declarations referred to give the address of the insured, the period during which the policy shall remain in force, the location of insured’s business, and a classification of operations as follows:

[127]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coal Operators Casualty Co. v. C. L. Smith & Son Coal Co.
66 S.E.2d 521 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1951)
Coal Operators Cas. Co. v. CL Smith & Son Coal Co.
66 S.E.2d 521 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1951)
Sun Indemnity Co. v. Lovell
6 Conn. Supp. 337 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1938)
Sun Indemnity Co. v. Lovell
6 Conn. Super. Ct. 337 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 N.W. 882, 190 Wis. 122, 45 A.L.R. 1323, 1926 Wisc. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-casualty-co-v-woerpel-wis-1926.