Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pioneer Seafoods Co.

(dissenting).

I dissent. The basic question is as to whether the Casualty Company was bound by contract to defend a certain action against the Sea Foods Company by one Hanseth, whose complaint alleged that he was suffering from tuberculosis contracted while he was employed by the latter company on its fishing boat as a result of its negligence in' supplying him with unhealthful sleeping quarters and insufficient nourishment.

The answer to this question depends upon the construction of a policy of insurance issued by the Casualty Company to the Sea Foods Company. That in turn depends upon whether Hanseth’s affliction if caused as alleged, was included within the meaning of the words “bodily injuries accidentally suffered”. The court below held that it was.

The case is of course governed by the law of Washington, where the contract was made, and this action instituted. Erie Ry. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 , 114 A.L.R. 1487 .

A preliminary question that may well be considered is as to whether tuberculosis negligently caused is a bodily injury for which the party whose negligence caused it would be liable under Washington law. The answer must be in…

A declaratory judgment construing an employers’ liability policy issued by appellant to appellee, Pioneer Sea Foods Company, was sought in this action brought by appellant.

In December, 1936, appellant issued an employers’ liability policy to Pioneer Sea Foods Company, hereafter called the company, wherein appellant agreed

On April 12, 1938, appellee Hanseth, who was employed by the company as a gill netter and seaman, filed an action in a state court of Washington to recover damages, and alleged that the company furnished him sleeping quarters on a boat which “were improperly, carelessly and negligently constructed, equipped and maintained” in nine particulars, and that as a result of such negligence, his “health was so weakened and undermined that * * * (he) became physically weakened and his ability to resist germ invasion was almost completely destroyed; that by reason of said weakening * * * (his) ’susceptibility to the attack of the tubercular germ was raised to a high point” and that he contracted tuberculosis. The company tendered the defense of the action to appellant. Appellant declined to defend on the ground that Hansefh’s affliction was not within the‘terms of the…