*1 691 P.2d
Marilyn DOWNING, Individually A. personal representative
as of the estate Anthony Downing,
of Michael de
ceased, Plaintiff-appellant,
v.
The TRAVELERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, corporation, a
Defendant-respondent, Inc.,
Burlington Northern, corporation; a Company,
Camas a Prairie Railroad DOE,
corporation; corpo and JOHN
ration, Defendants. 14645.
No.
Supreme of Idaho. Court
Nov. 1984.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 1984. McCann, Jr., Lewiston,
William V. Falls, Hoyt, Mont., John C. plain- Great tiff-appellant. Lewiston, Brown,
Robert P. and Michael Wash., C. Geraghty, Spokane, for defend- ant-respondent.
BAKES, Justice.
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant summary judgment to the defend- ant, Company. the Travelers (1) presented The issues are: whether beneficiary of an is a third de- plaintiff’s between defendant, ceased husband’s juris- court had and whether the district opposed diction the case to hear Railway given to the exclusive the Federal Board Labor Act. husband, Downing, Michael A.
Plaintiff’s employed by engineer train Railroad, subsidiary of Prairie employed by previously Northern. He was being transfer- Burlington Northern before Downing would drive the red to Lewiston. Lewiston and back to train from Orofino to *2 Orofino, where he would leave it and then and was not within of the named exclu- “deadhead” back to Lewiston in his own sions.
vehicle. “Deadhead” is a trade term de- Appellant made a claim Burlington scribing a railroad employee’s travel, by Northern under Article IV of the “off- vehicles, “off-track” to and from the start- agreement. Burlington track” denied the ing point of the train. Under a collective claim, stating that it did not come under bargaining agreement Downing was agreement’s conditions because he was per twelve cents mile and time one hour’s traveling on motorcycle, a and his authoriz- deadheading for in “authorized vehicles” automobile; ed off-track vehicle was an back to day question, Lewiston. On the second, already he had completed his after the train “tied Orofino at 4:55 up” at travel to returning Lewiston and was p.m. on July 1, 1977, Downing left Orofino pick up motorcycle. his Finally, Burlington Lewiston, riding motorcycle he denied the Downing claim because had left prior to his shift Orofino on the have come within driving the exclusion for train. miles out of About ten Lewiston the while under the influence of alcohol. Bur- motorcycle gas. Downing ran out hitch- lington Downing informed Mrs. her hiked way the rest of the into Lewiston attorney remedy, they that their wished where get he called his wife to come and denial, to contest the was under the Rail- gas him and take out to motorcycle. way Labor Act since their claim involved Apparently, Downing was at a bar or tav- bargaining construction of a collective ern near the service station from which he agreement dealing working with condi- had alleged called his wife. It is that he tions. had drinking during been this time. Down- Appellant, through attorney, her chose ing admitted to his wife that he drank “two instead to make payment a demand for beers” while waiting at the tavern. She directly against Travelers Insurance Com- gasoline drove him with some back to pany rather prosecuting than a claim with where he had left motorcycle and then Railroad Board. Demand him followed as he rode it back into Lewi- was made on Travelers because it had a they As crossing ston. were the Memorial policy with the Camas Prairie Railroad Bridge, Downing evidently got too close to suring Camas Prairie for payouts it (or struck) divider, which caused him to obligated was to make under Article IV of control and be lose thrown into the oncom- bargaining agreement. collective lane, ing traffic where he was hit anoth- When Travelers would not honor the de- er killed. car and The accident occurred appellant brought action, mand naming four and one-half hours after Travelers, Burlington defendants left work at Orofino. The drive from Oro- Prairie, alleging Camas entitlement to fino to is a distance of 45 miles. Lewiston under benefits between Tra- Downing belonged The union to which (Count I) velers and Camas Prairie and also (United Union) had Transportation entered alleging conspiracy part on the of all into a bargaining agreement with collective three defendants to defeat her claim under many of railroads, including the nation’s (Count II). Burlington Prairie. Northern and Camas One month complaint filed, after the collective was con- bargaining agreement provision tained a defendants Northern and Ca- accidental death ben- for employees efits Prairie mas removed the case to federal who were killed while riding in authorized district court. All three defendants then “off-track” vehicles traveling while to and summary judgment, plain- moved for pay- work. A $90,000 ($100,000 ment $10,000 tiff remand- minus moved for an order offset for automatic life court on district the case to the state already paid) was authorized grounds the col- was no that there bargaining agreement lective giv- where the federal district court. Without employee was within the reasons, covered ing specific conditions the United States Dis- policy; the death benefit was an insurance order and trict Court vacated the removal employer. liability of the strictly potential the state district remanded the case to After this filed to deter- originally it was court where into, employer, entered “mi- not the issue was a mine whether or poten- Prairie, against this opted to insure Act. under the Labor nor bargaining liability the collective tial *3 court, to the state district After remand from policy purchased agreement with a summary judg- moved for the defendants policy ques- in respondent Travelers. The granted summa- ment.1 The district court policy, but it was not the group was a tion (Count conspiracy claim ry judgment on the the group policy in which ordinary type of II), acknowledged that plaintiff the after Rather, the group. the employees form conspiracy. Sum- she had no evidence of a policy group group referred to was granted to Tra- mary judgment was then into employer-railroads who had entered I. Company on Count velers bargaining agreements. collective similar appealed only the Plaintiff coverage provide group policy The was to summary judgment in favor of Travelers by the liability imposed upon them for the I. on Count agreements bargaining collective various policy The covers the em- with the union. the collective bar- ployer’s liability under bodily injury, includ- Appellant’s right gaining agreement to death benefits stems death, by accident which is bargaining agreement caused an from the collective by employee of one of sustained an railroad-employ- the union and the between employers employee while the participating er, provides: which traveling conveyance land in an off-track inju- employees personal “Where sustain All deadheading under orders. or while set ries or death under conditions payable participating benefits are to the (a) below, the paragraph forth in carrier employer upon receipt proof from the employees, or provide pay such will employer of the occurrence for which representative, applica- personal their policy provi- The makes claim is made. no (b) paragraph amounts set forth ble employee. payment sion to On the below, subject provisions to the of other policy specifically provides contrary, paragraphs in this Article. provided benefits in this Article “[a]ll “(a) conditions: Covered paid participating V to the Em- shall be is intended to cover acci- “This Article added.) (Emphasis pro- It also ployer.” by involving employees covered dents that benefits are to be to the vides Agreement while such receipt proof employer “upon of written in, riding boarding, alighting or are forms,” and that the the Insurer’s by vehicles authorized the carri- offtrack provide such reasonable informa- er “shall er and necessary investiga- tion as be orders____” “(1) deadheading under tion and settlement of claims.” The spe- The collective not for a claim to be policy does allow pay the requires presented by employee paid directly or cifically employee.2 are met. As noted in the if certain conditions to such affida- benefits Kinder, em- an of Travel- agreement requires the vit of E.J. Nothing in the through ers: provide the death benefit ployer to Northern, Group Policy, a different de- 2. This is in contrast to
1. Camas Prairie
#GA-23000,
below,
summary judgment,
entered
between the em-
also
into
moved for
fendants
Travelers,
provided
ployer
for acci-
claiming
mat-
state court "lacks
that the
life insurance to the
dental death benefits and
has failed
ter
because
$4,000
Payment
employee’s
prescribed
survivors.
acci-
as
her mandated remedies
exhaust
$6,000
death benefit and a
life insurance
by Congress
Labor Act.”
dental
under the
directly
granted by
were made
to the widow of
summary
benefit
was
That
# GA-23000.
Michael
trial court.
policy
This
directly
bargaining agreement.
was entered into
with
railroads,
participating employers.
clearly
intended to
All of the
payments
made under
policy,
liability pol-
an indemnification
directly
are made
em-
icy. It was intended to insure the Camas
ployers,
to any injured employee,
obligations
Prairie Railroad’s
under the col-
personal representative.
heirs or
bargaining agreement.
lective
is,
fact,
a reimbursement of the
appellant attempts
In this action
respective participating employers’ liabil-
directly sue Travelers to recover benefits
ity
bargaining
their collective
policy negotiated
under the insurance
be
agreements
railway
with the
la-
various
employer.
tween Travelers and the
This is
unions,
14, 1968,
September
bor
dated
insurer,
direct action
an
together
any subsequent
with
modifica-
party
not a
to the insurance contract.
potential
tions
Any
or amendments.
The situation here is similar to a case
claim
employee,
for benefits
or his
*4
B,
A injures
liability
where
B has a
insur
personal representative,
heirs or
is made
C,
policy
ance
attempts
with
and A
to sue C
directly
railroad,
Travel-
not to the
directly to
poli
recover benefits under the
is,
fact,
ers
in
Company,
cy.
type
This
of direct action has never
investigated
and the rail-
by the railroad
recognized.
been
Pocatello Industrial
liability
road determines whether there
West,Inc.,
783,
Park
v.Co. Steel
101 Idaho
bargaining agree-
under the collective
(1980).
little If think, Downing): summary, Your ... remand, party insurance carrier is a Honor, remand, say on the I would that wrong party wrong and the issues will be way either the court holds that did plaintiff before the court. The cannot original jurisdiction. have point any language to indi- you “THE In other words what employee cate that an COURT: or his heirs have saying is that the should are State Court rights policy. under the ex- dispute decide whether this is a minor pressly provides payments otherwise. All go and that it would back to the Board expressly payable made dispute. for determination under a labor Accordingly, party er. there is no third beneficiary claim available to un- saying, “MR. That’s what I am DUNN: der our cases. Your Honor. The State Court is the
proper question. Court to determine that Well, II “THE COURT: the State Court would have to decide if this is a minor federal and state district courts Both the dispute.” noted the fact that if this claim constituted Thus, dispute” under the the federal district court seemed a “minor Labor § Act, 153, juris- if the 45 U.S.C. then exclusive have been convinced that matter at dispute” the claim would be in the Rail- issue was a “minor under the Rail- diction of § Act, 153, argues way road Board. Plaintiff Labor 45 U.S.C. then the that, Adjustment Board would ex- since the United States District Court Railroad have court, jurisdiction, clusive not the federal or state remanded this case back to the state courts, if it impliedly district was not a “minor the United States District Court dispute,” there still would be no ment. petitioner The fact intends in the federal district court because there hereafter employment seek elsewhere was no diversity, the state courts does not present make his claim jurisdiction. would have dispute the less a as to interpretation collective-bargain- of a
The seminal case on whether or not an
ing agreement.
presents
issue
His
claim is
dispute”
“minor
is An-
therefore
requirement
drews
Act’s
Co.,
v. Louisville
that it
& Nashville RR.
320,
1562,
406 U.S.
be submitted to the
adjust-
S.Ct.
istence
such an
of
wrongful discharge.
pleading
If the
of
depend
in a case such as this will
on
permitted
injury
aggrieved
emotional
em-
interpretation
the
the collective-bar-
of
R.L.A.,
ployees
impact
avoid the
of
the
gaining agreement.
petitioner’s
Thus
claim,
congressional purpose
respondents’
providing
of
disallowance
it,
comprehensive
differing interpreta-
stem
federal scheme for the
of
from
collective-bargaining agree-
employer-employee
tions
the
settlement of
dis-
of
parallel
appeal
3. The
between that action and this ac-
this case. No
has been taken from the
striking
conspir-
tion is
in view of the claim of
conspiracy
trial court’s dismissal of the
claim.
acy
appellant
which the
asserted in
HUNTLEY,
industry,
Justice, dissenting.
without
putes in the railroad
courts,
be thwarted.”
resort to the
would
The logic
opinion
be
majority
issue evidence rules without Ill dispute.” “minor involves a that this claim Viewing alleged facts and the exist- concluding Second, majority, record favorably most plaintiff, I, spectre of Part inserts paragraph we nevertheless conclude that defendant is defend, Travelers, required to would be to summary entitled judgment on the fol- matters defenses required to assert lowing bases: is not a third exper- *7 knowledge or its beyond which were beneficiary to party the indemnity or liabili- in the is, demonstrated as fact The tise. between ty policy defendant Travelers and incorporates policy the insurance Prairie; Appendix, plaintiff’s and alleged in contained the defenses verbatim almost death benefits to the involves entitlement Agreement. Bargaining the Collective interpre- arising out of the “minor agreement bargaining of a collective tation majority The reaches its result via a de- the railroad the union and between (cid:127) monstrably faulty reasoning process: jurisdiction the exclusive er to The policy Premise: Railway Adjustment Board. fulfill a procured duty to contract of the court is of the district employer-railroads. respondent. to affirmed. Costs premise From that Conclusion: jumps
majority to the conclusion that the SHEPARD, J., DONALDSON, C.J., be and insurance contract cannot be said to employees. for the benefit of the concur. reasoning process fallacy in that pass through is tion is to them on employee who actual beneficiaries of the third-party evident. It is not the law of case, or, in injured, this has suffered beneficiary contracts that a contract be- strange It A B for “accidental death.” would be tween mutual benefit of A to employer indeed if the could reserve law B cannot also benefit C. Most con- right that conduit itself the to serve as to, are do, tracts intended confer a existing concomitant without there (A benefit the contracting parties & right beneficiary in the ultimate B), respectable but no authority gone policy pursue policy benefits. It is to so far as to suggest that such benefits issue, significant, addressing this to note mutually flowing exclusive to employer, purchasing this insur- that the (C). to a third chose a employees, ance for the The determination of whether there is exclusions which contains the same exact “mi- party beneficiary “third contract” or a forth in the policy coverage as are set grievance” appropriate nor is not an matter Bargaining Agreement. The Collective summary judgment ruling and the use point agreement parties is that the were in summary judgment was a clear abuse special that there would be certain benefits procedure by of that the trial court. That payable employees who were accidental- majority abuse the now embraces and en- ly injured killed or dead-heading while un- dorses, vastly compounding the mischief orders, employee der but the would be ex- statewide dissemination of incorrect third- benefits, cluded from those or those bene- party beneficiary contract law. diminished, if fits the accident occurred driving while the was under the drugs, apparently influence of alcohol or BISTLINE, J., concurs. irrespective of the fact that accident Now, was not at all his fault. if the em- BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. ploying companies, paying pre- railroad If person it be that a whose life is mium, passing solely and in turn con- $100,000 (or sum) sured for can whatever tractual obligation on to Travelers had on his own death somehow contrive to col- caused to inserted therein the same ex- be insurer, doing lect from the the manner of agreed upon act defenses that were readily so does not mind. Obvious- come to Bargaining Agreement thereby Collective — decedent, definition, ly, can- because the passing along to Travelers the risk of an beneficiary not be the of a employee’s injury at the same death or promises death, payment upon well, passing time on the defenses as then policy, unable to enforce the action there a contention might be some merit to seeking by his brought must do so that the not direct benefici- were personal representative by his os- and/or Such, policy provisions. aries of how- precisely tensible beneficiary. Such is ever, is not the case. What we have before place. what here took us at is no different than had the It recognized must be that the Travelers straightfor- the bargaining agreed table Article question, particularly here wardly dead-head- would be such there Y, states that all benefits “shall be employees, and benefits available to But, participating Employer.” pur- at agreed employer railroad time, same is also true that the which would policy, purpose chase a benefits, not the but beneficiary provide those be to Such was not those benefits. *8 merely obliga- agreement, serves the for certain the as a conduit whose but was employer’s majority opinion group "policy covers the that the 1. The somehow confuses this bodily injury, including obligation liability death”— “potential for contractual with the liabili- demonstrating potential again ty” may subject further confusion between that tortfeasors them- liability they purchase of a railroad to its servants and and for which reasons the tort selves to "liability” policies liability where no tort is in the which in indem- a contractual essence are Hence, nity policies. tangentially involved. it remarks least
519
—
Cruz,
v.
employer unilaterally
the
{Blake
in which
manner
caused defects
Idaho
way
—,
14510,
was the best
for it to
Sept.
eco-
(Sup.Ct.
determined
ern station from which he his wife. It called is alleged had that he APPENDIX TO DISSENT drinking during had been this time. His appeal presents This the issue of wheth- if he had him anything drink, wife asked er, record, summary on the status of the that he replied beers; had he to which two properly in was entered favor of Downing stated in however, her depo- Mrs. Company against Travelers believe did this to that she sition Marilyn Downing on the maintenance of a him, gasoline some with true. She drove compa- direct action the insurance motorcycle left his he had back to where ny group policy under a death benefits he rode it back him and then followed policy be- theory under a of the insurance crossing they were Lewiston. As into ing a contract for the benefit of a third Downing evidently Bridge, Memorial party, or whether the record demonstrates him to divider, lose caused struck the which questions there material of fact exist oncoming control and be thrown into by trial on the merits. for resolution lane, by another hit traffic where he was (and threshold) perhaps issue is A second four car and killed. occurred The accident juris- district court lacks whether the Idaho had left Downing and one-half hours after event, matter in due to the diction Orofino work at Orofino. The drive from dispute” under a rail- constituting a “minor miles. to Lewiston is a distance of bargaining agreement, road belonged Downing The union to which in vesting exclusive thereby (United Union) Transportation had entered Railroad Board. National with bargaining agreement into a collective including railroads, many of the nation’s Prairie. Burlington Northern and Camas con- bargaining agreement The collective THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND ben- provision for accidental death tained A of the factual and detailed statement while killed efits for who were necessary an procedural background vehicles riding in authorized “off-track” understanding and resolution of the issues pay-A traveling to and from work. while Downing appeal. Michael A. was $10,000 ($100,000 $90,000 minus ment Northern, Inc., employee Burlington an life insurance offset for automatic Spokane, Washington, he transfer- when the col- already paid) authorized was Lewiston, red to work on the Idaho to where the lective line of Prairie Rail- Orofino-Kamiah conditions covered employee was within the road, subsidiary Burlington Northern. named exclu- any of and was not within Downing, engineer, who was a train would sions. the train from Orofino to drive Lewiston a claim to Burling- made Orofino, where he leave Mrs. and back would Article IV of the “off- back it and then “deadhead” to Lewiston ton Northern Burlington denied the agreement. his own vehicle. LTnderthe collective bar- track” claim, stating that it did not come under agreement Downing gaining agreement’s conditions because he was per cents mile and one hour’s time twelve traveling motorcycle, aon his authorized “deadheading” back to Lewiston. On being automobile; vehicle off-track question, after the train “tied day ground already on the further he com- p.m., 4:55 drove up” at Orofino at Orofino, pleted his travel to Lewiston and was re- he had left motorcycle,
521 be- Finally, provisions set forth turning pick up motorcycle. rial of which are Down- Burlington denied the claim because low.1 the exclusion
ing may have come within group policy provided the The insurance of alco- driving while under the influence following “employ- term definition of the Downing hol. informed Mrs. ee”: they attorney remedy, their and her The term herein “Employee” as used denial, to contest was under wished by means an employed individual who is Act since their claim Railway Labor participating Employer in Ex- named bargain- of a collective volved construction capacity by hibit C a a sched- covered working ing agreement dealing with condi- agreement by organiza- ule held a labor tions. respect Employer tion with which such Mrs. chose instead to make a participates, as shown on the records of payment directly against Tra- demand for Policyholder, provide benefits of Company. The direct de- velers Insurance provided by policy. kind this Bene- mand Travelers was made on the policy payable only under this will be fits par- theory that Mrs. was a third respect to those individuals with who ty beneficiary of Travelers Insurance Com- definition at the time of the meet this pany group policy accident and health No. causing injury involved. accident GA-822432 between Travelers “bodily injury” term defined the group rail- Company as “insurer” and a “deadheading” pro- specific in terms of the roads, Prairie, including “employ- Bargaining Agree- visions of the Collective ers”, employers collectively constitut- ment as follows: “policy holder”. “bodily injury” The term as used herein death, procured including bodily injury, means resulting pursuant by to the terms of article IV of the accident and di- caused an bargaining agreement, independently other rectly collective the mate- all provide provided: 1. The loss of life or The carrier will occurring days after dismemberment within ARTICLEIV—PAYMENTSTO EMPLOYEESIN- (a): paragraph JURED date of accident covered in UNDERCERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES 100,000 employees personal injuries Where sustain or Life Loss of para- death under the conditions set forth in below, (a) graph provide the carrier will (d) Exclusions: pay ative, employees, personal represent- such or their (b) paragraph provided shall Benefits applicable para- amounts set forth in any following payable not be for or under below, (b) graph provisions conditions: paragraphs in other this Article. (1) Intentionally injuries, sui- self-inflicted (a) Covered Conditions: thereat, any attempt sane or cide or while This Article intended to cover accidents insane; involving employees by Agreement covered this (2) any Declared or undeclared war or act in, riding boarding, while such thereof; alighting or from off-track vehicles authorized Illness, disease, (3) any or bacterial infec- by the carrier and are occurring tion other than bacterial infection (1) deadheading under orders or consequence in wound; of an accidental cut or (2) being transported expense. at carrier (b) Payments to be Made: (4) occurring employee while the Accident any In the event that one of the losses enu- the influence of alcohol or driver is under (1), (2) (3) subparagraphs merated in below drugs, any employee passenger who is or if injury directly from results from an sustained drugs any under the influence of alcohol or an accident occurs or commences within the accident; way contributes to the cause of the (1), (2) subparagraphs time limits set forth in (5) employee below, is a driver or an (3) While an provide, subject carrier will contained, any conveyance engaged any occupant to the terms and conditions herein test; payable Group speed less amounts Pol- race or Insur- commuting of The Travelers GA-23000 icy Contract While an Company ance other medical or insur- place of business. from his residence or and/or plan paid entirety by ance carrier, for in its following benefits: (1) Accidental Death or Dismemberment causes in loss policy pro- appears covered It from comments earlier in the vided such injury Em- is sustained proceedings Judge McNichols based ployee in, riding while he operating, his ruling on his belief that the federal *11 boarding, or off-track alighting from an district court would jurisdiction not have conveyance partic- land by the authorized even if there were a federal ipating Employer and while such Em- volved: ployee is under the deadheading orders (Counsel MR. DUNN: plaintiff for participating Employer being or is Downing): think, I summary, ... Your transported expense partici- at the Honor, remand, on the I say would pating (Emphasis Employer. supplied). way either the court holds that it did not then, V, The insurance in article original jurisdiction. have entitled “Limited Accident pro- Benefit” THE In you COURT: other words what vides verbatim the same six exclusions saying is that the State Court should IV(d) which are set forth in article decide whether dispute this is a minor bargaining agreement. go and that it would back to the Board When Travelers would not honor de- for determination under dispute. a labor mand, appellant brought action, this nam- MR. DUNN: That’s I saying, what am Travelers, as defendants Burlington Your Honor. The State Court is the Prairie, and Camas alleging entitle- proper question. Court to determine that ment to the benefits under the be- Well, THE COURT: the State Court (Count I) tween Burlington Travelers and would have to decide if this is a minor and conspiracy part on the of all three dispute. defendants to defeat her claim under the (Count II). Thus, the federal district court seemed to if have been convinced that the matter at filed, One month complaint after the was dispute” issue was a “minor under the Rail- Burlington defendants Northern and Ca- § Act, 153, way Labor 45 U.S.C. then the mas Prairie removed the case to federal Adjustment Railroad Board would have ex- district court. All three defendants then jurisdiction, clusive not the federal district moved summary judgment, plain- court, dispute,” it were not a “minor tiff moved for an order remand- jurisdiction there still would be no ing the case to the state district court on federal district court because there was no ground jurisdiction that there was no diversity, only the state courts would the federal district court. hearing After jurisdiction. Accordingly, have the remov- matter, Judge U.S. Ray District McNi- al order was vacated and the case remand- chols stated: ed to the state district court where it was THE I say COURT: must some- originally filed. argument times oral is not valuable and very court,
sometimes it is valuable. At one district After remand to the state time I say am frank to that I summary believed judg- the defendants moved for question. that this was a federal But I granted ment.2 The district court summa- persuaded am now that this ry judgment in favor all three defend- orig- situation. This Court does not have I ants on Counts and II. As to both Count jurisdiction. inal I assume that there is II, claim, conspiracy plaintiff stipu- diversity. not the needed she had no conspiracy. lated evidence of a appealed I Plaintiff therefore feel that have no alternative summary judgment but to remand the case to the State favor of Travelers Court. I. Count Northern, 2. Camas Prairie and prescribed de- her exhaust mandated remedies as below, summary judgment, by Congress Railway fendants moved for under the Labor Act.” claiming summary judgment granted that the state court “lacks mat- That ter because has failed to trial court. Court, dismissing ruling. guidance, Count I as note that As we would against Travelers, did not articulate focus should not be whether legal basis for the ruling. Apparently it distinguished is a “minor by ruling did so as a matter of law that this “major dispute” Railway under the Labor record does not establish that the Travelers Act, dispute but rather whether it is a Policy was a contract for the under the Labor Act at all. benefit of third such as Mrs. Down- provides Title Section U.S.C.A. ing. specific Whether that is the basis for the establishment of the National Rail- entirely the dismissal as to Travelers is not road Board and defines its certain in that the court minutes of the griev- duties relative to the resolution of *12 date of the argument, signed by oral the ances as follows: deputy clerk signed approved by and (i) disputes between an or presiding judge the part: state in of and a carrier or car- “The court finds Travelers Insurance growing grievances riers out of or out of Company is entitled to as a interpretation application agree- or of matter of law because no controversial rules, concerning ments pay, rates or of (sic) affidavits have been filed”. conditions, working including cases ground The latter would not have been a pending unadjusted 21, on June proper basis granting summary for the of 1934, shall be handled in the usual man- judgment if in fact the supplied affidavits up including operat- ner to and the chief by the parties together other depo- with the designated officer of the carrier presented sitions and exhibits facts which disputes; failing handle such but if construed favorably most to the manner, adjustment reach an in this would not have entitled judg- Travelers to a disputes may by petition be referred ment as a matter of law. parties by or either to the
II appropriate Adjustment division of the Board with a full statement of the facts THE APPLICABILITY OP THE supporting bearing and all data upon the RAILWAY LABOR ACT disputes. (Emphasis supplied). Both the defendant railroads and Travel- The trial court should determine wheth- ers Company urged before the er, contends, as Travelers this action federal jurisdiction court that in this matter dispute interpretation volves a over the or exclusively lies with the National Railroad application agreement concerning of an Adjustment Board under Railway La- working conditions, pay, rates of rules or bor Act as a “minor and the claim- whether, Downing, or as contended Mrs. ant contrary position. took the The federal or not the issue is whether issue, court did not that ruling resolve that policy is a “contract for the benefit of a it did not have before it a federal party”, third with the terms and conditions original jurisdiction, or commenting policy being of the insurance the matter in that “the state would have to decide contention. if dispute”. this is a minor However, remand, following the trial Title Section U.S.C.A.establishes issue, court did not resolve that and the the National Mediation Board and Section parties point have not at presented this provides jurisdiction 155 in that Board court, (a) evidence before either the trial disputes concerning changes or to mediate court, upon this which such a determination pay, working rates of rules or conditions Rather, can be made. adjusted by conference, the issue has served not parties purpose pro- (b) no other than to dispute confuse the other not referable to ceedings, and on remand the should the National Railroad Board or squarely address the provide issue to adjusted par- conference between the opportunity proper trial court with an for a ties. “major” distinction between adjudication Railway dis- submitted for
pute and
dispute
“minor”
summarized
Adjustment Board.3
Independent
Flight
Federation
Attend-
Secondly,
might
the trial court
wish
TWA, Inc.,
ants v.
nor” on the other is one “growing grievances out of or out of the Ill interpretation application agree- or rules, concerning pay, ments rates of THE CONTRACTS FOR BENEFIT OF (Citations omitted).
working conditions. THIRD PERSONS having The trial court not ruled Should court on remand determine applicability nonapplicability of the Rail- preempted by the is not way plaintiff, Labor Act to the claim of Act, Labor but rather that appeal, Court will not do so on but will controlling issue is determination *13 by remand for initial determination thereof whether or not the Travelers Insurance the trial court. policy is a contract for the benefit of third then, parties Downing, such as Mrs. in that We would note for the trial court’s con- event, necessary the will be to resolve sideration two matters which are in the is, in the latter We hold that issue First, Kinder, record. Mr. Eddie Joe the issue.. record, present question context of the a of Company’s director of Travelers Insurance properly fact which could not have been group department responsible which is summary judgment. We reach life, accident, resolved on group all of the and health following the that conclusion because of policies by issued Travelers testi- analysis would be deposition authorities and pay- fied that whether or not construing facts in the by ap- applicable, ment would the be made Travelers was record, present to parently subject light to the terms insur- a most favorable interpretation ance rather than an the claimant. No, ner, and, Q. asking you adjusted,
3. I am not make a deci- if not be referred to the to sion on a appropriate claim that’s not been submitted. of NRAB in the manner division Kinder, asking you, What I am Mr. is if Camas by prescribed reason for this the Act. The $90,000 pay Marilyn Downing were to the she legislation by Congress is that mandated the claimed, would Travelers reimburse Camas? processed disputes dis- such should be your you And I understand answer to be that expert posed by of an arbitration board only you would do so decided that Camas was jargon____ that railroad Court [T]he [finds] making payment correct in the to Mrs. interpretation dispute of the involves not an policy? under the terms of the interpretation policy, of the letter the but an A. That's correct. involving fringe agreements, and is a matter otherwise, And, you deny Q. would it? and, agreements, by benefits afforded such, correct, A. That is fall if it did not within the dispute of is a within the policy. terms of the may appropriate divi- NRAB. It be that the pay Q. pay So decision to or not to on kind sion of NRAB has had before it the same Travelers, Travelers, part of is reserved to is goes saying, dispute. whether it of It without that correct? not, by appropri- has or that decision A. Yes. having ruling ate division would result in a 4. The court in Neville stated: application employees union as to other or (45 The Labor Act U.S.C. Section kin, representatives nearest of or of the es- requires seq.) disputes et between an employees. tates of deceased or of and a carrier accordingly grants the defendant’s Court growing grievances carriers out of or or out lack motion to dismiss for of matter interpretation application agree- or of jurisdiction. concerning pay, ments ing rates rules or work- conditions, be handled in their usual man-
525
which re-
condition
contingency
Mrs.
claims
or
that she is a benefi-
other
ciary
contract,
right
although
becoming payable,
a
she is not
ain claim
sults
specifically named in the insurance con-
beneficiary which
insurer
vests in
hand,
tract. On the other
Travelers Insur-
fraud, collusion or
cannot defeat unless
ance
is
Company asserts that the contract
a
be shown.
some
can
similar circumstance
indemnification, although the
contract of
Carrico,
Bergkamp
In
Idaho
v.
having
phrases
word
“indemnification”
ey
given
right
a
In
E.B.
shall be
to en-
Concrete Contractors v.
Roberts
policy,
generally by
force the
a direct
Co.,
(Colo.App.
A third party beneficiary ordinary group batim the insurance policy con- contract Furthermore, to the limitation its tract. the collective bargain- terms as greater he has rights no ing agreement would be admissible into it than provided in the contract itself. evidence as one of the extrinsic circum- However, upon the of the in- stances death to be utilized in interpreting the sured, or upon the occurrence of any contract. whether there in fact not determine does
IV an insurance contract for the exist SUMMARY party. third Reversed benefit of a remanded. conclusion, In noted that it should be this decision the narrow we decide attorney fees awarded. No costs or Court, being presented issue to this summary granting of whether or not the this record was
judgment on the basis of answer
improper, we whether the do not decide
affirmative. We exclusive
facts establish Board and do Railway Adjustment
National