OCR Text |
Show SUPREMECOURT REVERSES ORDER To Deny Award Made by Industrial Board The Utah supreme court today reversed re-versed Its el in the ca-fe of the Con-Mnental Con-Mnental Caaualty cofnpnnjr ;ainiit j the Induntrial pommlnaton of the late. Ihe communion havlna: made nn award In favor of the widow and minor children of one Rnsmua i. Neiteon. who lost his life In an accident acci-dent while In the employ of the j ICIaterate Varnlnh end Hubber com -1 pany, which hapjened near lurhenne ! on Auffust 4. 1921. The casualty company contested the award on the ground that no poller of Insurance was In existence at 'the date of the accident and that the deceased was not an employe of the Insured at that time. Orift-inally the supreme court, on an appeal for a, rehearing; of the matter petitioned for by the casualty company, affirmed the decision of the commission, which gave the maximum j award. In reviewing- the award, the supreme su-preme court in an opinion written hy Justice Valentine Otrteon says: "The 1 Industrial commission is an adminta-j adminta-j tratlve body. It Is not vented with power to reform a contract or to make ! . a new contract to conform with the) Intent of the parties. That power ; belongs to another forum. The policy j of Insurance, although bearing- dale subsequent to the date of the arc)-1 dent, by Its terms undertook to Insure the employes of the Insured from aj date antedating the date of the con- j tract. In the disc una ion of the first objection to the award made by the 1 plaintiff It waa held that It was the duty of the oommlsaion to enforce the letter of the contract. By parity of reasoning the commission waa without authority to construe and apply the contract of Insurance to Include or cover workmen In the employ of : either an individual or corporation ! not named aa the Insured in the I policy of insurance. It follows therefore there-fore that the award made by the commission must be annulled. It is so ordered. "After the esse waa argued and submitted an opinion waa rendered affirming the award. A petition for rehearing- waa subsequently filed, and upon a more thorough investigation and consideration of the record and authorities the court has concluded that Its former opinion should not ! stand. That opinion Is therefor re-called re-called and the views herein expressed ' will be published as the opinion In the. rase. The petition for rehearing j is denied." |