delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff, Aetna Insurance Company (Aetna), appeals from an order and judgment of the District Court which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the respondents. In its complaint Aetna asked for a declaratory judgment construing a cargo insurance policy issued to the respondent Earl Cameron, a self- employed hauler of heavy equipment. The policy insured goods hauled by Cameron against “direct physical loss or damage caused by: ... 5. Accidental collision of carrying conveyance with any other vehicle or object” but excluded coverage for:
“... j. Loss or damage caused by the vehicle coming in contact with any portion of the roadbed, curbing, rails or ties of railways;
“k. Loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by the load or any portion thereof or tarpaulin covering thereon coming into contact with any other object unless the carrying vehicle also collides with such object...”
On November 2, 1979, Cameron was hauling a forklift owned by respondent Gene Lenz from Kalispell, Montana, to Columbia Falls, Montana. Before reaching its destination, the forklift mast struck a railroad overpass causing extensive damage to the forklift. The collision between the forklift and the overpass caused the trailer to swerve and strike the overpass supports.
The issue raised by this appeal is whether the damage resulted from a peril insured against under the policy. There are no disputed genuine issues of material fact.
Aetna contends the damage was not covered for three reasons. First, the primary coverage required at least two occurrences in the proper sequence before coverage existed: (1) the carrying conveyance *221 or trailer must initially collide with an object, and (2) the collision between the trailer and object must directly cause the physical damage or loss to the cargo. A collision between the cargo and a foreign object which is the direct cause of the damage is not, argues appellant, within the insured peril. Second, the overpass formed part of the railway roadbed, therefore, exclusion (j) of the policy precludes coverage. Lastly, the accident was covered by exclusion (k). Appellant contends that the conveying vehicle did not collide with the same object as did the cargo thus making exclusion (k) operative.
The respondents contend ambiguity exists requiring judicial construction of the policy. Respondents rely upon ambiguity being construed against the insurance carrier.
We hold that the general risk provision and exclusion (k), are ambiguous when read together. The insured is entitled to a favorable construction. Under the facts of this case, a reasonable interpretation of the policy provisions supports the judgment of the District Court.
Aetna has cited numerous cases arising from cargo collisions where the courts have found no ambiguity, and have held that the plain meaning of the terms and definitions denied coverage for cargo collisions.
Hamilton Trucking Service, Inc. v. Automobile Ins. Co.
(1951),
Contrary authority exists supporting liberal construction of similar cargo risk provisions.
C & J Commercial Driveway Inc. v. Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corp.
(1932),
Contracts of insurance are interpreted in light of all relevant provisions.
Alpha Real Estate Dev. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co.
(1977),
It appears that coverage was intended if the conveying vehicle struck “such object”. Here the conveying vehicle struck a portion of the overpass structure thus satisfying policy provisions for coverage.
Aetna argues that the overpass was a part of the railway roadbed and thereby excluded by subsection (j). Exclusions and words of limitation must be strictly construed against the insurer
Northwestern Nat. Gas. Co. v. Phalen
(1979), [
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.