United States v. Eagle Star Ins. Co., Limited

On the original consideration of this case, 196 F.2d 317 , attempting to apply the local (Washington) law, we held, in effect, that a certain provision of the insurance policy involved was unambiguous. So holding we approved denial of recovery from the insurer of damages growing out of the loss of an aeroplane belonging to the assured, appellant’s intestate, on the ground of the latter’s negligence in the operation of the plane. Feeling that wc had perhaps gone beyond the Washington holdings in our appraisal of the provision in question as well as in other respects, we granted a rehearing.

The facts of the case are fully set out in the original opinion. There we reviewed and relied on two Washington decisions, Isaacson Iron Works v. Ocean Acc. Corp., 191 Wash. 221 , 70 P.2d 1026 , and Hamilton Trucking Service v. Automobile Ins. Co., 39 Wash.2d 688 , 237 P.2d 781 , which we thought established for Washington a “literal” rule of construction of insurance policies.

In the Isaacson case [ 191 Wash. 221 , 70 P.2d 1028 ] the insurer was sued upon its public liability policy containing coverage against liability for accidental property *765 damage to third persons. Property of a third…

(dissenting).

I thought it proper to grant a rehearing in this case because at the time that.order was made I had some doubt as to whether our former opinion disclosed a correct apprehension of the Washington law. Now that the rehearing has been held I am satisfied that, as we previously indicated, what the Supreme Court of Washington said in Hamilton Trucking Service v. Automobile Ins. Co., 39 Wash.2d 688 , 237 P.2d 781 , represents the settled rule of that State with respect to the construction of insurance contracts. As quoted in our former opinion, the key language of that case was as follows at page 783 of 237 P.2d: “We have not adopted the lines of reasoning found in the cases cited by respondent in order to determine the intent of the parties, or what they may or must have contemplated when making an insurance contract with reference to the extent of the risk coverage when it was clear that the words were used in their ordinary sense or meaning, nor when the language used was plain and unambiguous. * * * We have taken the position in such matters that a rule of construction should not be permitted to have the effect to make a plain agreement ambiguous and then construe it…

201 F.2d 764 UNITED STATES et al. v. EAGLE STAR INS. CO., Limited, et al. No. 13122. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Jan. 30, 1953. J. Charles Dennis, U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & Henry, Seattle, Wash., for appellants. MacBride, Matthews & Hanify, Seattle, Wash., for appellees. Before HEALY, BONE, and POPE, Circuit Judges. HEALY, Circuit Judge. 1 On the original consideration of this case, 196 F.2d 317 , attempting to apply the local (Washington) law, we held, in effect, that a certain provision of the insurance policy involved was unambiguous. So holding we approved denial of recovery from the insurer of damages growing out of the loss of an aeroplane belonging to the assured, appellant's intestate, on the ground of the latter's negligence in the operation of the plane. Feeling that we had perhaps gone beyond the Washington holdings in our appraisal of the provision in question as well as in other respects, we granted a rehearing. 2 The facts of the case are fully set out in the original opinion. There we reviewed and relied on two Washington decisions, Isaacson Iron Works v. Ocean Acc. Corp., 191 Wash. 221 , 70 P.2d 1026 , and…