Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Idaho v. Cook

• Decision Date: 30 March 2018
• Docket Number: Docket No. 44897
• Citation: 163 Idaho 455,414 P.3d 1194
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edgar Wilkins COOK Jr. and Laurie Frances Cook, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellants, and Joseph Stanczak, Defendant.

163 Idaho 455
414 P.3d 1194

FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Edgar Wilkins COOK Jr. and Laurie Frances Cook, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellants,
and
Joseph Stanczak, Defendant.

Docket No. 44897

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, January 2018 Term.

Filed: March 30, 2018

James, Vernon & Weeks, P.A., Coeur d'Alene, for appellants. Wes S. Larsen argued.

Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, Boise, for respondent. James L. Martin argued.

BRODY, Justice

163 Idaho 456

This case involves the interpretation of the insuring clause of a bodily injury liability provision in a property insurance contract. This case originated from an intentional

414 P.3d 1196

163 Idaho 457

shooting at a campground. Michael Chisholm shot Joseph Stanczak during an altercation on property owned by the Cooks, who had property insurance through Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau determined it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Cooks because the shooting was not a covered act under the policy. Farm Bureau filed a declaratory judgment action seeking judicial confirmation of its determination. Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the district court find as a matter of law that the intentional shooting was not an "occurrence." The district court granted Farm Bureau's motion. We affirm the district court's judgment in favor of Farm Bureau.

I. BACKGROUND

Edgar and Laurie Cook own 200 acres of property ("Property") in Bonner County, Idaho. The Property includes Bloom Lake, a cabin, and a campground. The Cooks allow people to use the lake and campground without charging a fee, but they solicit voluntary donations to help with the Property's upkeep. Approximately twenty years ago, Michael Chisholm asked the Cooks if he could stay in the cabin in exchange for maintaining the Property. They agreed, and Chisholm began caring for the Property.

On June 28, 2015, Joseph Stanczak and his girlfriend were camping at the Property. Chisholm invited them into the cabin, and a dispute later arose between Chisholm and Stanczak. Chisholm shot Stanczak twice with a .45 caliber handgun, then left the scene. Authorities later apprehended Chisholm and charged him with Aggravated Battery and Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Felony. Chisholm entered an Alford plea, by which he pleaded guilty without admitting guilt as to all the elements of the crimes. He was sentenced to prison.

The Cooks have an insurance policy ("Policy") with Farm Bureau that insures the Property. The Policy's only insureds are Edgar and Laurie Cook. The Policy includes the following relevant definitions:

Occurrence means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to the same harmful conditions, which results in unexpected bodily injury or property damage during the policy period. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from a common cause will be considered the result of one occurrence .

Additionally, the Policy's Section II contains two relevant coverage sections: F1 (Bodily Injury Liability) and F2 (Premises Medical). Coverage F1 provides in relevant part:

If a claim is made or a suit is brought against any insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage , caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies, we will:

1. Pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable (damages includes any awarded prejudgment interest); and

2. Provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice. ...

Coverage F2 offers the following:

Subject to the limit of liability, we will pay reasonable and necessary medical and funeral expenses resulting from bodily injury caused by an occurrence as described below. This coverage does not apply to you or residents of your household other than residence employees . This coverage applies only:

1. To a person on the insured location with the permission of any insured ....

(emphasis in original for all policy language above)

Stanczak asserted claims against Chisholm, the Cooks, and Farm Bureau for injuries stemming from the shooting. Through counsel, Stanczak made a demand on Farm Bureau for damages under the Policy. Farm Bureau denied coverage and sent a letter to the Cooks informing them of its denial. Stanczak later filed a complaint against both Chisholm and the Cooks. In his complaint against the Cooks, Stanczak alleged premises liability and negligent supervision. The Cooks tendered defense of this action to Farm Bureau, and Farm Bureau found no coverage and no duty to defend against Stanczak's complaint. Stanczak filed an amended complaint, which deleted references to the Property as for-profit and Chisholm as an employee.

414 P.3d 1197

163 Idaho 458

Farm Bureau did not change its coverage decision.

Farm Bureau filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and amended it in response to Stanczak's amended complaint. In its amended complaint, Farm bureau sought a declaration that (1) there is no coverage under the Policy for Stanczak's claimed injuries, and (2) it does not have a duty to defend the Cooks against Stanczak's claims against them. The Cooks counterclaimed, asserting breach of contract and requesting a declaration of coverage. Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the coverage issues. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. The Cooks timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews a summary judgment motion under the same standards the district court used. Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co. , 145 Idaho 408, 410, 179 P.3d 1064, 1066 (2008). "The court must grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(a). All disputed facts must be liberally construed in favor of the nonmoving party, and all reasonable inferences from the record must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Mackay, 145 Idaho at 410, 179 P.3d at 1066. "Summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party bearing the burden of proof fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case." Id. This...