Century Sur. Co. v. Jim Hipner, LLC
Decision Date | 17 August 2016 |
Docket Number | S–15–0294 |
Citation | 2016 WY 81,377 P.3d 784 |
Parties | Century Surety Company, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Jim Hipner, LLC; and Huey Brock, Appellees (Defendants). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Christopher C. Voigt and Nicholas T. Haderlie of Crowley Fleck PLLP, Sheridan, Wyoming; Jeffrey C. Gerish of Plunkett Cooney, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan; Bradford S. Moyer of Plunkett Cooney, Kalamazoo, Michigan. Argument by Mr. Gerish.
Representing Appellees: Duane A. Lillehaug of Maring Williams Law Office, P.C., Fargo, North Dakota, representing Jim Hipner, LLC; Colleen M. Pratt and Michael D. Ainbinder of Ainbinder & Pratt, Long Beach, California, representing Huey Brock; Philip White Jr. of Karpan and White P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, representing Jim Hipner, LLC and Huey Brock. Argument by Mr. Ainbinder.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
[¶1] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit certified a question to this Court concerning the enforceability of an insurance policy notice provision. Specifically, the Eighth Circuit asked:
[W]hether, under Wyoming law, an insurer must be prejudiced before being entitled to deny coverage when the insured has failed to give notice “as soon as practicable.” Many states have expressly adopted a notice-prejudice rule under which an insurer will only be able to disclaim coverage if it demonstrates it was actually prejudiced by late notice. See 46A C.J.S. Insurance § 1769. To date, Wyoming has not.
We answer in the affirmative.
[¶2] Although the parties provided a record containing various documents, we find it unnecessary to refer to that record. Where a question of law is certified to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 11, we rely upon the factual determinations of the certifying court. Wexpro Co. v. Brimhall , 7 P.3d 42, 43 (Wyo. 2000) ; Allhusen v. State By and Through Wyo. Mental Health Professions Licensing Bd ., 898 P.2d 878, 881 (Wyo. 1995). The following facts were provided in the Eighth Circuit's Order for Certification of Questions of State Law:
[¶3] Century appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On December 28, 2015, the Eighth Circuit filed the Order for Certification of Questions of State Law, stating the question quoted above, see supra ¶ 1. On January 20, 2016, this Court issued a Notice of Agreement to Answer Certified Question.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶4]Pursuant to W.R.A.P. 11.01, we may answer a question of law that may be determinative of a cause pending in the certifying court for which there appears to be no controlling precedent from this Court. Preston v. Marathon Oil Co. , 2012 WY 66, ¶ 4, 277 P.3d 81, 83 (Wyo. 2012). Certified questions are queries of law that are reviewed de novo. Id. ; State v. Mares , 2014 WY 126, ¶ 10, 335 P.3d 487, 493 (Wyo. 2014).
State v. Black Hills Power, Inc. , 2015 WY 99, ¶ 4, 354 P.3d 83, 85 (Wyo. 2015).
[¶5] In North Fork Land & Cattle, LLLP v. First American Title Insurance Company , 2015 WY 150, ¶ 14, 362 P.3d 341, 346 (Wyo. 2015), we explained that Wyoming courts interpret insurance policies like other contracts; however, we give insurance policy language “the plain meaning a reasonable insured would understand it to mean,” and where terms are ambiguous, they are strictly construed against the insurer. We take this approach because insurance policies are contracts of adhesion where “the insured has little or no bargaining power to vary the terms....” Id . (quoting Doctors' Co. v. Ins. Corp. of America , 864 P.2d 1018, 1024 (Wyo. 1993) (internal citations omitted)).
[¶6] Century argues that the policy language at issue is unambiguous and even a strict construction of that language in favor of Hipner requires its enforcement. Century also claims that because the notice provision language is not unconscionable, it must be enforced. Finally, Century avers that Wyoming law requires the rejection of the notice-prejudice rule (which requires an insurance company to be prejudiced before it can deny coverage based upon the violation of a notice provision in an insurance policy), especially in this case where the notice provision contains language requiring notice whether Century was prejudiced or not. In response, Hipner asserts that, regardless of the policy language, prejudice should be required when an insurer denies coverage based upon a failure to provide timely notice of a claim or occurrence and urges this Court to adopt the notice-prejudice rule because it is consistent with Wyoming precedent and is warranted by a variety of public policy considerations.
[¶7] Traditionally, courts held that in order to avoid liability or its duty to defend, an insurance carrier only needed to establish that an insured's notice of an occurrence or claim was untimely; prejudice to the insurer was irrelevant to the inquiry. Charles C. Marvel, Annotation, Modern Status of Rules Requiring Liability Insurer to Show Preju dice to Escape Liability Because of Insured's Failure or Delay in Giving Notice of Accident or Claim, or in Forwarding Suit Papers , 32 A.L.R.4th 141, § 2 (updated 2106). According to this view, “timely notice is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pitzer Coll. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.
...tort victims’; and 3) ‘the inequity of the insurer receiving a windfall due to a technicality.’ " ( Century Sur. Co. v. Jim Hipner, LLC (Wyo. 2016) 377 P.3d 784, 789.) These reasons are largely in accord with the justifications courts have set forth in determining that other rules constitut......
-
Hurst v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., S-17-0082.
...function of insurance coverage" is to "provid[e] compensation for injuries sustained by innocent members of the public." Century Sur. Co. v. Jim Hipner, LLC , 2016 WY 81, ¶ 12, 377 P.3d 784, 790 (Wyo. 2016). Even more poignantly, "it is apparent that the purpose of uninsured-motorists insur......
-
Brock v. Jim Hipner, LLC, Case No. 4-15-cv-84
...effect of the notice requirement in the insurance contract between Century and Hipner, which were answered in Century Surety Co. v. Jim Hipner, LLC, 377 P.3d 784 (Wyo. 2016). After this response, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this court's judgment, albeit on the alternative grounds Century ha......
-
Neumayer v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co.
...twentieth century, the notice-prejudice rule continued to gain support, and it is now clearly the majority rule. Century Sur. Co. v. Hipner, LLC , 377 P.3d 784, 788 (Wyo. 2016) ("A vast majority of jurisdictions now follow the modern trend and have adopted the notice-prejudice rule.").This ......
-
Court Summaries
...by res judicata since the charges had been previously dismissed with prejudice. Century Surety Company v. Jim Hipner, LLC and Huey Brock 2016 WY 81 S-15-0294 August 17, 2016 This case involves a certified question from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Jim Hipner, LLC obtained a policy of i......