One took out an accident policy of insurance on his life while "travelling by public or private conveyance." Having performed a part of his journey by steamer, which brought him to a certain village, he walked thence home about eight miles. Held, that while thus walking, he was not travelling by either public or private conveyance.
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Western District of Michigan; the case being this:
On the 8th of May, 1869, one Ripley took out an accident policy of insurance on his life, "good for one day," for $5000. It stipulated for the payment of that sum to the legal representatives of the assured, in the event of his death, from injuries effected through violent and accidental means; provided that the death was caused by an accident while the assured was "travelling by public or private conveyance."
After purchasing the ticket, the insured proceeded by steamboat to a village about eight miles from his residence, and from that village he walked home. While on his way he received injuries by violence, from the effects of which he died soon afterwards, and within the time limited by the policy.
The question was whether, when he received the injuries, he was "travelling by public or private conveyance." The court below held that he was not; and this holding was the error complained of.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
That the deceased was travelling is clear enough, but was travelling on foot travelling by public or private conveyance?
The contract must receive the construction which the language used fairly warrants. What was the understanding of the parties, or, rather, what understanding must naturally have been derived from the language used? It seems to us that walking would not naturally be presented to the mind as a means of public or private conveyance. Public conveyance naturally suggests a vessel or vehicle employed in the general conveyance of passengers. Private conveyance suggests a vehicle belonging to a private individual.
If this was the sense in which the language was understood by the parties, the deceased was not, when injured, travelling, within the terms of the policy. There is nothing to show that it was not.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.