Baltimore & Carolina Steamship Co. v. United States Merchants & Shippers Insurance

Adkins, J., delivered'the opinion of the Court. This is a suit by the appellant carrier, on behalf of certain shippers of live stock feed, against the appellee insurance company, on a contract of marine insurance between the car7 rier and the insurance company. It involves the construction of an open insurance policy, issued by the insurance company to the carrier, in connection with contracts between the carrier and shippers; and a consideration of the bearing of the Interstate Commerce Act upon said contract. ⁶⁴³ The policy of insurance was issued to the appellant as "agent or owner, or as freighter, forwarder, bailee, common carrier or for whom it may concern,” and was “upon all kinds of lawful goods or merchandise laden or to be laden on the good S. S. Betty Weems” for one year from June 27th, 3926, to June 27th, 1927. The policy included the following provisions: “It is hereby understood and agreed that this insurance shall attach only on such goods, etc., e1c., as above as in case of loss or damage the Baltimore and Carolina Steamship Company may be liable for as owner, freighter, forwarder, bailee and/or common carrier, or upon which said company has agreed to effect insurance, or upon shipments destined to points on the Southern Railway * * * on the Atlantic Coast line,” or Seaboard Air Line Railway “or received from those railroad companies upon which there is an actual or implied promise to insure. “At and between Philadelphia, Pa., and/or Baltimore, Md., and/or Wilmington, A. 0., and/or Georgetown, S. 0., and/or Charleston, S. G., and/or Brunswick, Ga., and/or Miami, Pla.; with privilege of calling at and trading between any intermediate ports and/or places.

Also1 including risk on dock prior to shipment and/or after discharge, this insurance attaching and covering whether waterborne or not, from the time the risk on said goods, etc., etc., as above, is assumed or incurred by the said Baltimore and Carolina Steamship Company and to continue until delivery of the goods, etc., etc., as above, to consignees and/or connecting carriers and until the liability of the said Baltimore & Carolina Steamship Company is terminated.” The claim in this case is for the loss of parts of two shipments of feed. They were delivered on August 30th, and August 31st, 1926, by the Sugarine Company to the Louisville & Aashville Railroad Company and bills of lading duly executed. The feed was transported from Owensboro, Ken ⁶⁴⁴ tucky, by various connecting carriers by rail, including the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, to Charleston, South Carolina, where, on September 4th, 1926, it was delivered by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to the appellant steamship company in -exchange for its receipt. The feed was unloaded from the car and put on the steamship “Betty Weems” at Charleston, and was transported by the steamship company on said ship from Charleston to Miami, Florida, where on September 10th, 1926, it Was unloaded on appellant’s dock covered by a warehouse.

On September 17th parts of the shipments were delivered to the consignees, but during that night the remainder of the feed was destroyed by hurricane and sea waves while it was still on the company’s dock. Tariffs of appellant company had been filed with, and approved by, the Interstate Commerce Commission prior to August 30th, 1926, and were in effect from the time of their approval until a time subsequent to September 18th, 1926. Claims for the value of the feed destroyed were presented by the consignees to the consignor and paid by the consignor, which, in turn, presented said claims to the appellant, which did not pay them, but made demand upon the appellee on behalf of the consignors on this open insurance policy, which demand was refused. Suit was brought by appellant on behalf of the consignors, and the case presented on an agreed statement of facts.

The only question at issue between the steamship company and the insurance company which was submitted to the court for determination was: Did the policy continue to cover the feed for more than forty-eight hours, plus a Sunday or legal holiday, if one intervened, after the feed was unloaded from the steamship ? The case was tried by the court without a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant. This appeal is from a judgment on that verdict. The tariff of the appellant, covering shipments between Charleston and Miami originating at interior points, provided that “the rates published in this tariff do not include marine insurance, but same may be effected in accordance with pro ⁶⁴⁵ visions and at the rates published in tariff of this company I. C. C. 47, or reissues thereof”; and the provision therein in reference to insurance is as follows: “Traffic handled by this