The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. William T. Stover
327 F.2d 288
8th Cir.
1964
Check Treatment

*2 Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and BLACKMUN, Judges, Circuit DAVIES, Judge. District DAVIES, Judge. RONALD N. District 6th, 1961, On June a boat with an in fifty horsepower motor in board excess being operated by William T. Sto Hamilton, County, ver on Garland Lake having After Arkansas. fueled the boat at Dock, the Lake Hamilton Marine Service started the motor and drew away traveling from the dock. After sixty yards, distance of some the motor attempting died. While Stover was by” injury “owned either resultant explosion it, occurred start fire, “rented to” insured. As result boat burned. Stover, in addition passengers, pur- question seven been injuries.* suffered funds chased ilton Marine were passengers of parties were consolidated P. Coleman liability perfected this litigation which had Western a Coleman T. Stover tion in the United States for the two actions amended wanton erage provided that: Stover. ligence and relied which and William Stover the terms Court ering 14, 1962, it Three actions Aetna An “This being the State of while to operation, # ing “(b) Under ing fifty horsepower. owned filed the exclusion found for Stover and Aetna by Agar at negligence. defendant, policy policy Aetna’s Eastern District All the Division, Casualty inboard to include William period, April but denied by upon by the time of [*] was notified of the away employee. thereupon of its previously while the doing instituted T. ownership, maintenance, * * * Service or rented to an does not use, loading Aetna Arkansas on contained [*] contention from complaints operated coverages William Stover motor policy. fueling Aetna seeking behalf and the alleging coverage. and commenced an ac- Two third was filed by issued a Company, 14, 1959, April (2) Surety Company apply: [*] power the Morgan District Court against the T. of the premises as Lake of the actions explosion in the courts that the boat The District watercraft or unload- * * * denying liable under alleged A [*] willful declaratory passengers complaints owner of the Insured, boat. the T. Stover Arkansas, exceed- Band pending William filed injured Inc., Willis policy Agar, # Ham- neg- cov- ”, cov- if and has by boat or had as capital William tract we presented by held that rine Insurance Insurance provision ject Traveler’s v. pretation, the construction T. ther settled thors the liam T. the ferent Ark. the tablish that William T. insured We do itations 232 are tional view ing they Company 285 ed it is Terms Lamb, Cir., Stover owned insurer, States, Cir., 306 F.2d 892: may evidence subject to different duty of the court so to construe F.2d all to more 311 the actual or 930, The conclusion of the susceptible. cannot that would contexts. stock. not will be is Stover T. S.W.2d contract. 2 299; William 311 S.W.2d of of America isIt well Company Ryburn, 228 Ark. adopted Indemnity *3 Stover, Inc., 8 exceptions feel a Washington rented it from was for the necessary. an insurance be can than Aetna in an disturb its interpretation boat, entity all of the question of the 342 strictly construed Substantial as Company Ryburn, 228 Washington 302; 314 sustained Cf. Blumenfield 48 of the be justify recovery, equitable T. “owned” or one reasonable S.W.2d detailed since the settled Prudential refused inferences of not rented the boat. v. and F.2d placed 302. Stover and if a reasonable Company v. of which meanings in dif- evidence, Trial The Trial Court found that Wil- & Fire Marine Barnes, v. Stover findings 618. attempt that when policy is sub upon any words It is the evidence 50 owner summary favoring was not on the con Fire & insurer Court, weight Insurance shares disregard company. v. also “owner” William v. Unit- was against includ 9 unless which of the Hyde, to es- inter Blau it Cir., well lim was Ma the the au ra ei- it, of of discussion, Aff’d., * F.Supp. 713; F.2d detailed the back For 1963). (8 Cir., ground Paul Fire & Marine facts see St. D.C., Company Coleman, v. Insurance corporation “owned” company When an Trial Court that insurance view, was, policy our a reasonable claims that not liable on its exception because sustained evidence. one and of some or exclusion coverage, the burden is under which Conditions company on the prove insurance facts disregarded may corporate entity be bring exception it within the or ex corporation alter looked clusion. Company Riverside Insurance vary ego principal stockholder of America McGlothin, 231 Ark. according each circumstances of 332 S.W.2d 486. Aetna has failed to equity case. The is founded doctrine meet this burden. only applied war and is when the facts *4 injus prevent application rant its to light In the of the circumstances of ex tice. We do not feel this situation say this case wre cannot that the Trial ists in the instant case. $3,800.00against Court’s award of Aetna attorney for pursuant fees made Company, Inc., to T. for William Stover Stat.Ann., 66-3239, years prior § is it ac- some unreasonable. when attorney No additional quired involved, fees will the here be boat maintained appellee awarded on this several other Until boats on the lake. charged corporation 1956 the all of the District Court is depreciation operating expenses the and Affirmed. of the boats as a off reasonable ordi- and nary expense corporate business on its VAN OOSTERHOUT, Judge Circuit Federal income tax returns. In William (dissenting). Company, Inc., T. Stover v. Commission- respectfully I agree Revenue, dissent. er of Internal I cannot 27 T.C. policy that erage the denying exclusion the Tax Court affirmed the Commission- cov- respect er’s corporation that the watercraft determination “owned by or only rented to the could insured” deduct one-half boat’s ineffective of the under depreciation the facts operating of this expenses and case. as a If the ex- clusion portion solely were limited ownership, the boat’s use was attributa- go along I could personally. ambiguity ble to with the Subsequent Stover de- agree decision, termination and this on that advice and such word counsel might narrowly be accountants, interpreted corporation the and that deducted under support only interpretation one-half depreciation the the facts boat’s would finding operating expenses a and that charged Stover was not an the agree owner. I also that per- remainder to a situation is Stover’s presented requiring sonal year piercing account. In the the the the burned, boat veil. corporation the deducted as expense necessary a However, the use of the word “rent- depreciation all operat- in ed” connection with the word “owned” ing expenses of the boat. leads me to believe parties that the in- tended the word “owned” to be position used takes the that Aetna a broader sense. charged corporation on Stover since deprecia Additionally, of the acquiesce with one-half its books cannot I in the expense operating boat, tion and that “rented” conclusion as used in con- renting reasonably effect boat. Stover here can be text construed to rejected theory, Trial Court this exclude Stover as a renter of the boat. holding undisputed that term referred “rented” under the corporation paid conventional to the renter-rentee rela one-half of the cost tionship relationship depreciation this did maintenance and of respect following not exist between the com Stover and to the boat in pany. per $411.56, We think this a amounts: $741.15, 1958— 1959— payments conclusion was missible reached repre- These $1515.71. 1960— Court. paid Trial a sent substantial consideration for being purposes. personal for used right use question this serious If there used

purposes it was not when issue, ap- such issue should be resolved payments purposes. Such business pear the trial court. definitions standard to meet all out including set rental, the definitions would I reverse. court. the trial rent requirement of no know I or that fixed, amount stated dollar inbe operate or that profitable rental be only en- lessor is where situations gaged rental business. in the primarily statement my view, trial court’s In applies relationship renter goes person “when a such situations be- a boat or hires and rents dock NUM NEW MAILERS’ UNION YORK restric- longing too is much to another” SIX, BER GRAPHICAL TYPO INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,

tive. Peti *5 tioner, significance upon the fact place no I during plaintiff the accident RELATIONS NATIONAL LABOR expenses. year, paid part the boat no BOARD, Respondent, fairly action that such shows The record City, of the attor- advice York was taken Publishers’ Association of New given Intervenor. neys accident. There after change any ar- to show no evidence rangements No. Docket 27943. respect in 1961 with Appeals States Court of United the boat. use of Second Circuit. times for the boat at used Plaintiff Argued Oct. 1963. personal purposes. the substantial If Jan. Decided upkeep de- payments he made for part preciation not virtue of by way rental, pur- ownership what making pose exist for could possiby payments ? requiring the rule construction While liberally ambiguous policies insurance has been fre- insured

in favor quently applied, au- such rule does not language perversion of to create thorize a ambiguity. & Trust Cass Bank See Co., Cir., F.2d Ind. v. National Co. pay- I that the (1/14/64). believe constitute rent made

ments definition under “rent”.

word urged plaintiff the ex- Inasmuch apply whether the did clusion company used for upheld pleasure, the court Stover’s finding construction, made no the use the nature of the accident. at the time of that the boat to indicate is much There