 display....
The air jet sieve e200 LS menu navigation is simple and well-defined. 12 languages available. Comprehensible symbols on the intuitive touch screen guarantee high operating comfort. SETTINGS. System information, date / time, network, balances, sieving, numerical formats, units of measurement, etc. SIEVING.Wet sieve analysis was conducted on sediment sample from location P2 since it had been observed to have abundance of large particles (sands and gravels). In this sample, subsampling had been at 10 cm interval from top to bottom of the sediment core. The sieve analysis procedure was done following the ASTM D421 standard [33, 34].
Implement in a c program the following procedure to generate prime numbers from 1 to 100. This procedure is called Sieve of Eratosthenes. Step 1: Fill an array num [100] with numbers from 1 to 100. Step 2: Starting with the second entry in the array, set all its multiples to zero. Step 3: Proceed to the next non-zero element and set all its...This quick and easy Home Standby Sizing Calculator will provide you with 3 possible generators to fit your needs, along with estimated installation costs, and financing options. Just provide your zip code and how much of your home you want to back up (all of it or just selected appliances) and the calculator will do the rest! See Our.
Test sieves for accurate sieve analysis with highest precision for reliable results different sizes high stability ISO approved Learn more. Retsch.... Woven Wire Mesh Sieves - other sizes. Frame diameter: ø 100 / 305 / 400 / 450 mm; Surface type: wire gauze; Mesh sizes: 125 mm - 20 µm; Standards: ISO 3310-1 / ASTM E11;Richest Person In Kenya And Top 10 Wealthy Kenyans. Generating a net worth of $1.7 billion, Manu Chandaria is the richest man in Kenya. He is is a Kenyan businessman of Indian descent. Along with being a senior member of the Comcraft Group of Companies, a billion dollar enterprise that has a presence in over 40 countries, he is on the boards of...
KOEL Holiday Shopping!
Now’s the time to be jolly! Be it the glittering holiday decorations in shop windows that never fail to excite our senses, or the festive spreads that await our bellies, we ADORE Christmas. Taking a step back from the looming festive hustle, we are definitely looking forward to making time to appreciate our family and friends at this time of the year…If you are making the same plans as the Bloesem team this Christmas, it’s jolly time to work your way through the list of people in your life who you would like to shower some Santa’s love to isn’t it?
We’ve got lots of goodies on KOEL shop online that we think make great Christmas gifts, big or small! There’s something for everyone on your list, even the ones you always forget…(ps. that’s a reminder not to forget them!)
Sharing our picks from KOEL shop…
From the most well thought out bundle of fluffy fine yarns for your mum’s next craft project to a beautifully screen printed pouch from Bookhou for your dear friend…we got them all covered for you!
…never too early to do your KOEL holiday shopping we say!
J. B. Browder, Richmond, Va. (Hall & Fox, Newport News, Va., and Browder, Russell, Little & Morris, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Montgomery Knight, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Doumar, Pincus, Anderson & Knight, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.
In a declaratory action to determine coverage under an automobile liability insurance policy, the District Court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment against the defendant insurer.1 The insurance company's appeal challenges the District Court's conclusion that the automobile was covered under the policy. It also complains of the exclusion of certain proffered evidence bearing on the ownership of the automobile.
On September 1, 1961, the plaintiff, Richard J. Carey, was injured when his car collided with a 1961 Chevrolet driven by Cecil Foster, the son of Virgil Foster. As a result of the accident Carey recovered judgment against Cecil Foster in the amount of $45,000. It is not disputed that the Chevrolet was covered by a standard liability insurance policy, issued by the defendant to Cecil Foster and Virgil Foster as named insureds and effective for the period from June 27, 1961 to September 13, 1961. The defendant paid Carey its maximum liability of $15,000 under this policy, leaving $30,000 of the judgment unsatisfied.
This litigation grows out of a dispute over the interpretation of the term "owned automobile" contained in another policy, issued on December 20, 1960, by the defendant insurance company to Virgil Foster covering a 1956 Hudson owned by him. It was what the defendant calls a "family automobile" policy in the amount of $25,000, and was in force at the time of the accident. Carey made demand on the insurance company for the amount of this policy, in further satisfaction of the $30,000 balance still due him on his judgment against Cecil Foster. Upon the insurer's denial of liability Carey brought this action for a declaratory judgment. The District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff,2 holding that the Chevrolet was an "owned automobile" within the definition of the "family automobile" policy and therefore under its coverage.
(2) any other person using such automobile, provided the actual use thereof is with the permission of the named insured;"
(2) the company insures all private passenger automobiles, farm automobiles and utility automobiles owned by the named insured on the date of such acquisition and the named insured notifies the company within 30 days following such date * * *."
The plaintiff maintains that when Virgil Foster acquired the Chevrolet on June 24, 1961 and then, on June 27, within 30 days, gave notice of this fact to the insurer by applying for and obtaining additional insurance covering this vehicle, it became an "owned automobile" under the definition in the family policy and was thus insured under that policy on the date of the accident.4 The insurance company answers that an examination of the facts reveals that the parties did not intend to insure the Chrevolet under the family policy. Its position is that when Virgil Foster purchased additional specific insurance on the Chevrolet he thereby elected to insure it only under the specific policy and to waive any insurance available under clause (c) (2) of the family policy. The insurer also contends that the automatic insurance clause constituted merely an irrevocable offer to insure newly acquired vehicles, which the insured was required to accept within thirty days of the acquisition of a new vehicle. It argues that Virgil Foster's notification in the form of an application for additional specific insurance covering the Chevrolet operated as a counter-offer, which was accepted by it upon issuance of the June 26, 1961 policy containing terms and conditions different from those in the family policy.5 Invoking general contract principles of offer and acceptance, the company says that its original "offer" was rejected by the "counter-offer" and the subsequent issuance of the specific policy covering the Chevrolet.
We agree with the District Court in its holding that the Chevrolet was insured under the family policy as an after-acquired automobile. The insurer is bound by the express terms of its contract of insurance. When those terms, taken in their ordinary sense, convey a clear and unambiguous meaning, a court cannot indulge in ferreting out hidden meanings or unexpressed intentions to relieve the insurer of liabilities assumed in the policy. When ambiguities arise, the intent of the parties is controlling; but if any doubt remained it would, under the familiar rule, be resolved in favor of the insured since the insurer formulated the language in the policy. See Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. Relder, 308 F.2d 761 (8th Cir. 1962); 13 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 7482 (1943).
However, we find no ambiguity. The defendant, in clause (c) (2), expressly undertook to insure all after-acquired private passenger vehicles of the insured, provided that notice of the acquisition is given within 30 days. Virgil Foster gave the requisite notice when he requested the defendant to transfer the insurance on his old automobile — a Plymouth — to the Chevrolet. The defendant's position that this notice operated either as a waiver or counter-offer is untenable. Frequently, automobile owners are unaware of the extent of coverage provided by their liability policies. Policies are long, detailed, and printed in type so small as to discourage close reading by the ordinary policy holder to determine precisely the coverage provided. It would be unreasonable to ascribe to Virgil Foster an intention to waive any additional protection to which he was entitled or to reject it by applying for specific insurance on the Chevrolet.6 If the defendant intended to insure newly acquired automobiles only as long as no specific insurance was taken out to cover them, it could have stated this expressly. If, as defendant suggests, it is anomalous to have two policies covering the same automobile, specific language obviating this could have been included in the family policy. Indeed, the simple omission of the provision in question would have avoided all question. The provision means what it says.
Moreover, the inclusion of a further provision for a premium adjustment on the family policy in the event of the acquisition of an additional automobile strongly implies coverage.7 While no premium adjustment was made on the family policy, the sequence of events from the acquisition of the Chevrolet to the date of the accident took only several weeks. The defendant may well have contemplated a premium adjustment in the future, but delay in