Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cleaver
| Decision Date | 01 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:21-cv-00082-DBB |
| Parties | FARM BUREAU PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN CLEAVER, SUNDAELEE CLEAVER, JILL CLEAVER, and ERIC N. CLEAVER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.[1] Plaintiff, Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance (“Farm Bureau”), seeks a declaration stating that it does not owe liability indemnity coverage to Brian Cleaver and Sundalee Cleaver (“the Cleavers”) for the injuries their young cousin, E.C suffered in an ATV accident on June 17, 2019, in Delta, Utah. Having considered the briefing, the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary.[2] For the reasons below, the court grants the motion.
The Cleavers own a residence in Delta, Utah that sits on 1000 East.[3] In June of 2019, E.C. was in town from out of state to visit the Cleavers' children.[4] On June 17, two of the Cleavers' children, B.C. and M.C., and E.C. rode two ATVs (a Polaris and a Yamaha[5])-owned by the Cleavers-to a nearby gravel pit.[6] The gravel pit is a common recreation area located north of the Cleaver's residence.[7] It is not owned in full or in part by the Cleavers,[8] and the road to access the gravel pit-1000 East-is a public roadway.[9]
While at the gravel pit, the Yamaha broke down.[10] All three children rode the Polaris back to the residence, obtained a towing cable, returned to the gravel pit, and began towing the Yamaha back to the residence.[11] B.C. drove the Polaris while E.C. sat atop the Yamaha to steer it, holding M.C. in her lap.[12] While being towed back on 1000 East, the Yamaha overturned and E.C. was injured, resulting in medical bills.[13]
The Cleaver's residence was insured by Farm Bureau from October 24, 2018, to October 24, 2019.[14] The homeowner's insurance policy (“the Policy”) listed Brian Cleaver, Sundalee Cleaver, Jill Cleaver, and Eric N. Cleaver.[15]
The Policy states that “[Farm Bureau] cover[s] ‘damages' that result from ‘bodily injury'.. .‘caused by' an ‘occurrence' to which these coverages apply.”[16] The Policy does not provide coverage for “damages” or “medical expenses” “arising out of” the use of an “all-terrain vehicle of a utility or recreational nature” while not on an “insured location.”[17]
The Policy's “Declarations pages.. .list or declare the property and liability exposures [Farm Bureau] agree[s] to insure,”[18] which, in this case, is the Cleavers' residence.[19] The Policy defines “insured location” as the following: the properties listed on the Declarations pages;[20] and “[a]ny premises used by you in connection with the ‘insured location[].”[21] Farm Bureau brought this suit to seek relief from liability to the Cleavers for E.C.'s injuries.[22]
Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[23] The parties do not dispute the material facts, only how the Policy applies to one particular fact-the location of the accident. They also agree that Utah law applies.[24]
“An insurance policy is merely a contract between the insured and the insurer and is construed pursuant to the same rules applied to ordinary contracts.”[25] When interpreting a contract, the intentions of the contracting parties control.[26] It is a court's duty to determine those intentions by examining the “four corners” of the policy.[27] “Courts interpret words in insurance policies according to their usually accepted meanings and in light of the insurance policy as a whole.”[28] “Policy terms are harmonized with the policy as a whole, and all provisions should be given effect if possible.”[29] In general, insurers may exclude from coverage certain losses “by using language which clearly and unmistakably communicates to the insured the specific circumstances under which the expected coverage will not be provided.”[30]
When interpreting an insurance policy, “ambiguity or uncertainty in the language of [the policy] must be resolved in favor of coverage.”[31] Ambiguity exists if a provision of a contract “is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation because of uncertain meanings of terms, missing terms, or other facial deficiencies.”[32] If the contract is language is unambiguous, “the parties' intentions are determined from the plain meaning of the contractual language, and the contract may be interpreted as a matter of law.”[33]Either way, a proposed interpretation “must be plausible and reasonable in light of the language used.”[34]
Applying Utah law, the court “‘must look to rulings of the highest state court, and, if no such rulings exist, must endeavor to predict how that high court would rule.'”[35] Decisions of the state's intermediate court of appeals may be considered.[36] Appellate court decisions from other states “‘and the general weight and trend of authority in the relevant law'” also may be considered.[37]
Since “[Farm Bureau has] no duty to defend any ‘suit' to which this insurance does not apply,”[38] the court must determine if the ATV accident occurred at a location where the insurance does apply, i.e., an “insured location.” The two “insured locations” applicable to this case are the residence owned by the Cleavers, and any premises used by the Cleavers in connection with the “insured location.”[39] The accident took place on 1000 East, a public road, and not at the residence.[40] Therefore the question becomes simply whether, under the Policy, a public road may be a “premises” used by the insured in connection with the residence.
The Cleavers urge that the task at hand depends on “the precise policy language at issue” and that an “examination of exact policy language is required.”[41] The court agrees. There are three areas where potentially relevant “premises”[42] are discussed in the Policy: “Farm/Ranch premises”; “Residence Premises”; and “Insured Location.” Each is discussed in turn.
The Policy defines “Farm/Ranch Premises” as “ [43] While neither of the parties argue that this definition applies, it is useful to note that these “premises” require either a physical structure (“Farm/Ranch structures”) or ownership or possessory interest in land (“Land . . . you own, rent, or lease”).
The Policy also defines “Residence Premises”: [44] The Cleaver's residence in Delta is a “Residential Premises” as are “the grounds, structures and private approaches” of the residence. This definition of “premises” does not resolve the issue here because the accident occurred approximately a quarter of a mile north of the Cleaver's residence.[45] However, like the “Farm/Ranch Premises” definition discussed previously, “Residential Premises” involve either a structure (“dwelling,” “structures,” “condominium, townhouse, apartment, or other building”) or associated land (“grounds” and “private approaches) in which the insured has at least some possessory interest.
“Insured Location” consists of any of the following:
A. Any premises shown in the Declarations under Insured Locations (which, here, is the Cleaver's residence: 905 N 800 E, Delta, Utah 84624); B. Any premises you buy or rent for use as a residence during the policy period other than premises used in connection with a “business.” Such premises will cease to be an “insured location” on the policy renewal date unless added to the Declarations; C. Any premises used by you in connection with the “insured locations” listed above; D. Any part of a premises you do not own but where an “insured” is temporarily residing; E. Individual or family cemetery plots and burial vaults of an “insured”; F. Land owned by or rented to an “insured” for the purpose of building a one or two family dwelling for habitation by an “insured”; G. Any part of a premises occasionally rented to an “insured” for purposes not related to “business”; H. Any “farm/ranch premises” you buy or rent in the same state as your other insured “farm/ranch premises” is an “insured location” until the end of the policy period in which you took possession; or I. Vacant land owned by or rented to you is an “insured location” until the end of the policy period in which you took possession. Land held for “business” purposes or used for “farming/ranching” is not vacant.[46]
Like the foregoing premises sections, the consistent theme of these “insured locations” involves either a structure or else land in which the insured has an ownership or possessory interest: the Cleaver's residence, “premises you buy or rent for use a residence,” “premises . . . where an ‘insured' is temporarily residing,” “cemetery plots and burial vaults,” “[l]and owned or rented,” “premises occasionally rented,” “‘farm/ranch premises' you buy or rent,” and “[v]acant land owned or rented by you.”
Here the Cleavers argue for coverage under Subpart C.: “Any premises used by you in connection with the ‘insured locations' listed above.”[47] They contend that because they use “the nearby gravel pit” and the public “road connecting their...
To continue reading
Request your trial