*1 Appellant, v. Company, Corporation, Products a Beehler Steel Liability Corporation, Company, a Insurance American Mutual pondent. (2d) 985. S. W. Res Appeals. Opinion filed November St. Louis Court Tucker, appellant. Allen Lewis, Rice, & Chubb *2 respondent. William B. for Schneider SUTTON, liability policy action is founded on a insurance C.—This plaintiff. policy captioned “Standard issued defendant Policy,” Compensation Employer’s Liability Workmen’s and February 28, policy plaintiff against issued on 1929. The insures was liability injuries” employees, for its as fol- liability (a) plaintiff against employees 1 to its lows: Clause insures Compensation plaintiff under the Workmen’s Act. Clause 1 damages imposed upon it for on account of law injuries” employees. By agrees 3 “such to its clauses and plaintiff, upon injuries,” by investigation to serve notice of “such any resulting thereof and settlement of claims in accordance with law-, any plaintiff and to in the ñame and on behalf of suits .defend any may at time be instituted proceedings which other or although such suits or injuries,” other account of “such plaintiff on wholly groundless, false, fraudulent. Clause 7 or proceedings are only injuries sus- agreement apply to such “This shall as follows: Policy occurring during. Period by reason of accidents part made a as such in item 2 of the declarations limited and defined for pleaded or relied on (a) of the is not hereof.” Clause solely on recovery. recovery put Reliance under period provides 2 of the (b). clause 1 Item declarations February from during in force shall be shall remain 1930, 28, 1929, to March at 12:1 o’clock A. M. agreed facts, tried on an statement of as follows:

The cause was employment at the time of Alva Jones was May employment until policy, in that issuance continued During and inhaled period he came in contact with *3 lungs respiratory fumes, a thereof his and dust and and result .as organs infected, thereby pul- and he became afflicted with became Jones, monary Alva made claim Subsequently, tuberculosis. said gave against plaintiff injuries, plaintiff on and the account of said de- May 13, 1933, Alva fendant notice thereof. said Jones immediate On Louis plaintiff a suit in the of St. commenced County. Circuit Court alleged By petition in Alva his said suit said Jones that through daily the of the constant and contact and inhalation with fumes, dust, organs vapors, plaintiff’s respiratory and became-ir- ritated, congested, thereby inflamed, infected and and that he was and negligence a result the to as direct of of defendant caused contract and. immediately pulmonary Plaintiff become afflicted with tuberculosis. gave notice of the institution of said suit and defendant defendant suit, plaintiff the of undertook defense and filed an answer for and the deposition Jones, appeared took the of Alva said and when the case 30, 1933, trial on for was called for October and asked and obtained 31, 1933, a of continuance said case. On October defendant notified plaintiff brought that defendant declined to further defend said suit so Jones, by accept claim, to on the said Alva and declined 27, 1933, attorneys by employed rep- on November the to suit, January 17, plaintiff resent from said and on withdrew negotiated plaintiff paid a settlement of'said suit under he which said amounting $2,000 $16.70, paid to Alva Jones and costs and also to its attorneys’ attorneys in the of represent- a reasonable fee sum for $250 ing suit, paid aggregating $2,266.70, it in the amounts so said for brought. present the suit was Plaintiff liable to said Alva was which injuries, reasonable, for his said and said Jones settlement. was making settlement, and defendant consented to the of said full with any right knowledge thereof, might and waived which otherwise it. interpose proved plain- had to the defense that it not that have was. Jones, but defend- to Alva legally injuries said for said tiff was liable injuries. said covered policy dénies that the ant n Plaintiff’s re- jury. a court without trial before was had the. in its favor was judgment for instruction quest peremptory for a of a demurrer nature instruction in the refused, and defendant’s accordingly Plain- entered. Judgment given. was to the evidence was appeals. tiff refusing its peremp- the erred in here that court Plaintiff contends instruction in the tory giving in the defendant’s instruction and evidence, that contends a and defendant nature of demurrer to injuries personal policy of the insures clause wholly fails to by accident, evidence show reason of any injuries. such Alva Jones sustained against liability 1 (b) be that clause It will observed injuries” to its damages on account of imposed law ’ ‘‘ ’ injuries not limited or defined. It employees. personal The term injury through physical pro result violence required is not that the Nor is it ducing objective symptoms at the thereof. defined time body. Diseases are not physical as violence to the structure of the Injuries such limitations and exclusions are covered excluded. with (a) phrase in “sus policy. clause Clause obscurely introduced, obviously accidents,” reason of injuries intended to limit and define covered with injuries. respect policy period to the to In other characterize —not words, injuries meaning is that the covers re the clause sulting period. from happening causes within the The word “accident,” lexically may defined, “anything as that happens.” mean accidere, obviously meaning happen. Its root is It is this sense *4 question. the in in Or, word “accidents” is used clause 7 here as Plecity 707, in (Conn.), said v. Hat Co. 164 Atl. McLachlan the word “accidents,” clause, as in this mean used must be taken to the con employment produce ditions of injuries. which the This construction not, by defendant, as phrase does contended useless the render “sus by purpose The accidents.” of the clause is to cover' not occurring injuries during policy period, injuries the but by happenings, causes, during reason of occurring or the period. words, meaning In other injuries is not that must during occur policy period, happenings but that the injuries cause the during policy period. must occur ' n It is (b) obvious that 1 is personal clause intended to cover such injuries plaintiff’s employees, for which plaintiff shall liable, become (a). as are not covered clause 1 It against should be liability Observed the. —not language is, accidents. imposed by The “the law for ’’ damages on personal injuries. hardly account of It could be broader.

845 (cid:127) n here,-it in the sense -where, as is-used injury,” The term body upon the may'cover' any harmful effect “bodily injury,” of term, frequently used in both The or disease. violence whether evidently in the used sense. It was more limited the broader here we are 1 with which in clause sense broader Casualty Co., 206 Mass. Maryland Hood & Sons v. P. concerned. [H. 379; 1192, Rep. Am. S.) A. 138 St. 329, (N. E. 30 L. R. 223, 92 N. 136, 133, l. Trustees, Wis. c. of 138 ex rel. McManus v. Board State Co. v. S.) 1175; Fertilizer 806, (N. 20 L. R. A. Jefferson 119 N. W. 40; v. State Conserva 633, 637, Christian Rich, 182 Ala. l. c. 62 So. 347; 635, 636, 182 N. Y. S. l. Commission, App. 191 Div. c. tion 780, 782; Aetna 188, 778, l. State, 111 149 A. c. v. Conn. Galluzzo 552, A.), 229 F. l. c. (C. C. Ins. v. Portland Gas & Coke Co. Life Co. Bonding & Massachusetts 553, 1027; 1916D McFarland v. L. R. A. 369, 962; L. R. Co., 254, 64 A. (2d) 157 Tenn. 8 S. W. Insurance 276; E. Lewis, App. 356, 117 N. Paperboard v. Ind. Co. United 1, 23 (2d) Francis, Tex. S. W. Ass’n v. International Travelers’ 100, 9 Barry, 131 S. S. Ct. 282; Mutual Acc. Ass’n v. U. United States City 92 W. 755, Downey (Mo.), Co. S. 60; 33 L. Ed. v. Kansas Gas Casualty Co., Fidelity 580; Paper v. & (2d) Columbia Stock Co. County 320; City and of San App. l. c. 78 S. W.

Mo. 273,191 P. Commission, 183 Cal. Francisco Industrial Accident 26.] v. agreed plaintiff’s statement of facts We that under the conclude in given should have been and defendant’s peremptory instruction should have in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence struction been refused. judgment Commissioner, therefore,

The that the of recommends with be reversed and the cause remanded to said court circuit court judgment of directions to enter favor $2,266.70, with costs. Sutton, C., adopted opinion

PER of CURIAM:—The foregoing opinion judgment of the circuit court ae- as court. enter 'cordingly reversed and the cause remanded with directions to J., Hostetter, P. judgment as recommended the Commissioner. Becker, J., McCullen; J., sitting. concur; not Respondent. Hunze, v. Fred L. Appellant, (Reed), Hunze Meta (2d) 109 S. W. *5 Opinion Appeals. filed

St. Louis Court of November