Burrows v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 21484,21484 |
| Parties | Marvin D. BURROWS, Warren J. Maxey, M & B Wholesale Bait, a partnership, Sylvia Abril and Alfred Abril, Appellants, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding that the insurance policy issued by respondent to appellants Marvin D. Burrows and M & B Wholesale Bait did not cover the injuries sustained by appellants Sylvia and Alfred Abril in an automobile accident. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment and remand back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In 1982, Marvin D. Burrows ("Burrows") and Warren J. Maxey ("Maxey") formed a partnership, called M & B Wholesale Bait ("M & B"), to buy and sell fish. The business also included delivering fish to various locations. In 1984, to accomplish the deliveries, M & B purchased a 1984 International two and one-half ton truck and a 1984 International truck. The two trucks were specially equipped to haul fish.
M & B purchased business auto insurance from respondent Progressive Casualty Insurance Company ("PCIC"), covering the two International trucks. The policy was issued on December 19, 1985, covering through December 19, 1986, and it was renewed for the period of December 19, 1986, through December 19, 1987. The policy declaration named both "Marvin Burroughs 1 and M & B Wholesale Bait" as the named insured.
Burrows and Maxey each personally owned a pickup truck. Burrows owned a Chevy Luv pickup truck, and Maxey owned a 1984 Ford pickup truck. During December of 1985 through December of 1986, these trucks "sometimes" hauled the small deliveries for M & B.
In December of 1986, Maxey flew to New Mexico to visit his family during the Christmas holiday season. Maxey left his 1984 Ford pickup at Burrows' house and gave Burrows the keys. While Burrows drove his partner to the airport, Maxey authorized Burrows to use the truck if anything came up. During Maxey's absence, Burrows used Maxey's pickup truck only one time; on December 30, 1986, in the course and scope of M & B's business, Burrows was delivering fish. En route, Burrows caused a traffic accident, injuring the Abrils.
The Abrils filed a tort claim 2 against M & B, Burrows, and Maxey. Thereafter, PCIC filed this declaratory action, seeking a declaration that its issued policy did not cover the damages sustained by the Abrils. Basing its decision on exhibits, trial briefs, and oral arguments, the district court found that the personal vehicles of Maxey and Burrows were furnished for the regular use of M & B and that, consequently, coverage for the Abrils' injuries was precluded under the policy's omnibus clause.
On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in declaring that the insurance policy did not cover the automobile accident because Maxey's 1984 Ford pickup truck was not furnished for Burrows' "regular or frequent use," and thus the accident is covered under the policy's omnibus clause. In response, PCIC asserts that appellants misconstrue the real issue and that the dispositive question is whether the 1984 Ford pickup truck was furnished for the "regular or frequent use" of M & B.
An insurance policy is a contract; as such, the policy is enforced according to its terms so as to effectuate the parties' intent. Sullivan v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 98 Nev. 364, 366, 649 P.2d 1357, 1358 (1982). We agree with PCIC's articulation of the issue: whether Maxey's 1984 Ford pickup was furnished for the "regular or frequent" use of M & B. The insurance policy provided:
We will pay, on behalf of an insured, damages other than punitive damages for which any insured is legally liable because of bodily injury and property damage caused by accident and resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of your insured auto. We will not pay more than the Limits of Liability shown in the Declaration for all damages resulting from one accident.
(Emphasis in original.) The term "insured" is further defined as:
When used in PART I, "Insured" means:
1. You while driving your insured auto.
2. You while driving any auto other than your insured auto, except:
....
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. Edna Assocs. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
...of the surrounding circumstances. See NGA # 2 Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Rains, 946 P.2d 163 (Nev. 1997); see also Burrows v. Progressive Casualty Ins., 820 P.2d 748, 749 (Nev. 1991). "In the absence of ambiguity, contract interpretation is an issue of law for the court, and may be decided on a moti......
-
Brewington v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...See NGA # 2 Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Rains, 113 Nev. 1151, 946 P.2d 163, 167 (1997) ; see also, Burrows v. Progressive Casualty Ins., 107 Nev. 779, 820 P.2d 748, 749 (1991) ; Klamath Water Users, 204 F.3d at 1210 (“Contract terms are to be given their ordinary meaning, and when the terms of a cont......
-
Keife v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...See NGA # 2 Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Rains, 946 P.2d 163, 167, 113 Nev. 1151, 1158 (1997); see also, Burrows v. Progressive Casualty Ins., 107 Nev. 779, 820 P.2d 748, 749 (1991); Klamath Water Users, 204 F.3d at 1210 (“Contract terms are to be given their ordinary meaning, and when the terms of a ......
-
Razaghi v. Razaghi Dev. Co.
...of the surrounding circumstances. See NGA # 2 Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Rains, 946 P.2d 163 (Nev. 1997); see also Burrows v. Progressive Casualty Ins., 820 P.2d 748, 749 (Nev. 1991). Contractual construction is a question of law "suitable for determination by summary judgment." Ellison v. Cal. Stat......