Fisher v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 04 June 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 970315,970315 |
Citation | 579 N.W.2d 599,1998 ND 109 |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Parties | Dennis FISHER and Dorothy Fisher, as assignees of Scott Delaney, dba Delaney Construction, and Kensok's Hardwood & Seamless Floors, Plaintiffs and Appellants v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee Civil |
Bruce A. Schoenwald, Fargo, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Steven L. Marquart, of Cahill & Marquart, Moorhead, MN, for defendant and appellee.
¶1 Dennis Fisher and Dorothy Fisher appealed a judgment dismissing their complaint against American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American Family) to recover on a judgment entered pursuant to a Miller-Shugart 1 agreement. We reverse and remand.
¶2 Fishers hired Delaney Construction (Delaney) of Moorhead, Minnesota, to install approximately 500 square feet of hardwood flooring in their Fargo home. The flooring was supplied to Delaney by D & J Hardwoods and Milling (D & J) of Park Rapids, Minnesota. After the flooring was installed, Fishers hired Kensok's Hardwood & Seamless Floors, Inc. (Kensok's) of West Fargo, North Dakota, to sand the flooring and apply a polyurethane finish.
¶3 Within a few months, wide gaps began to appear between sections of flooring and individual boards began splitting. Fishers sued Delaney in Minnesota district court for $7,626, alleging Delaney negligently installed the hardwood flooring. Delaney counterclaimed against Fishers and filed a third-party complaint against Kensok's and D & J. 2 Kensok's submitted the pleadings to its liability insurer, American Family. In a letter of May 15, 1996, American Family denied coverage and declined to defend the claim against Kensok's, asserting the following grounds:
Kensok's retained counsel at its own expense, answered Delaney's third-party complaint, counterclaimed against Delaney, and crossclaimed against D & J. The parties entered into an agreement under which Fishers dismissed their complaint without prejudice; Delaney dismissed its counterclaim without prejudice; Kensok's dismissed its counterclaim and crossclaim without prejudice; Delaney assigned to Fishers all its rights under the third-party complaint against Kensok's; Kensok's stipulated that judgment be entered against it on the third-party complaint for $7,626, but provided, in accordance with Miller v. Shugart, 316 N.W.2d 729 (Minn.1982) and Sellie v. North Dakota Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 494 N.W.2d 151 (N.D.1992), "said judgment may only be collected from the proceeds of any applicable insurance insuring KENSOK'S for the loss"; and Kensok's assigned to Fishers all its rights against American Family, including attorney fees it might have because of the insurer's failure to provide a defense.
¶4 Judgment was entered in Minnesota district court in accordance with the parties' agreement. Fishers then brought this suit against American Family in North Dakota district court to recover $7,626 from American Family, pursuant to the Miller-Shugart agreement. The trial court granted American Family's motion for summary judgment, concluding American Family "owes no coverage to Kensok's for all or part of the claims made against it by reason of the exclusions in the policy" and the Miller-Shugart agreement, therefore, was unenforceable. Fishers appealed to this court.
¶5 Summary judgment under Rule 56, N.D.R.Civ.P., is a procedural device for deciding an action without trial if there is no genuine dispute as to material facts or the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts or if only a question of law is involved, Hougum v. Valley Mem'l Homes, 1998 ND 24, p 7, 574 N.W.2d 812, or if the law is such that resolution of any factual dispute will not alter the result, Littlefield v. Union State Bank, 500 N.W.2d 881, 883 (N.D.1993). This case turns on the interpretation of Kensok's commercial general liability policy issued by American Family. "Determining the legal effect of an insurance contract is generally a question of law for a court to decide." Sellie, 494 N.W.2d at 156. On appeal, we independently examine and construe the insurance policy to determine if the trial court erred in its construction. Id. The interpretation of an insurance policy, including whether it is ambiguous, is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. Johnson v. Center Mut. Ins. Co., 529 N.W.2d 568, 570 (N.D.1995). An ambiguity exists when good arguments can be made for two contrary positions about the meaning of a term in a document. Sellie, 494 N.W.2d at 156.
¶6 "[A] term in an insurance policy should be construed 'to mean what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would think it meant.' " Sellie, 494 N.W.2d at 157, quoting Haugen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 191 N.W.2d 274, 279 (N.D.1971). "Limitations or exclusions from broad coverage must be clear and explicit." Emcasco Ins. Co. v. L & M Devel., Inc., 372 N.W.2d 908, 911 (N.D.1985). "[W]hen the language of an insurance policy is clear and explicit, the language should not be strained in order to impose liability on the insurer." Aid Ins. Svcs., Inc. v. Geiger, 294 N.W.2d 411, 414 (N.D.1980). However, any ambiguity or reasonable doubt as to the meaning of an insurance policy is strictly construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. Aid Ins. Svcs., Inc., 294 N.W.2d at 414; Applegren v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 268 N.W.2d 114, 118 (N.D.1978). "If the language in an insurance contract will support an interpretation which will impose liability on the insurer and one which will not, the former interpretation will be adopted." Aid Ins. Svcs., Inc., 294 N.W.2d at 414. Exclusions from broad coverage in an insurance policy are strictly construed against the insurer. Johnson, 529 N.W.2d at 570. An exception to an exclusion from broad coverage results in coverage. See Dundee Mut. Ins. Co. v. Balvitsch, 540 N.W.2d 609, 611 (N.D.1995); Emcasco Ins. Co., 372 N.W.2d at 910-11; Applegren, 268 N.W.2d at 118.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
... 829 N.W.2d 724 2013 ND 57 K & L HOMES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee. No. 20120060. Supreme Court of North Dakota. April 5, 2013 ... [829 N.W.2d 726] Troy ... Wisness, at 16. Likewise, although an exception to an exclusion from coverage results in coverage, Fisher v. American Family Mut. Ins., 1998 ND 109, 6, 579 N.W.2d 599, an exception to an exclusion is incapable of initially providing coverage; rather, an ... ...
-
McPhee v. Tufty
... ... Tufty, he again paid by check so there would be a family record of the transaction. According to Christopher Tufty, ... DeCoteau v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 ND 3, ¶ 19, 603 N.W.2d 906 ... Terms of an ... Fisher v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 1998 ND 109, ¶ 5, 579 ... ...
-
Wangler v. Lerol
... ... See Rebel v. Nodak Mut". Ins. Co., 1998 ND 194, ¶ 5 n. 1, 585 N.W.2d 811 ... \xC2" ... E.g., American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kivela, 408 N.E.2d 805, 813 ... Ins. Co. v. Horner, 1998 ND 168, 583 N.W.2d 804 ; Fisher v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 1998 ND 109, 579 N.W.2d ... ...
-
Western Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Univ. of ND
... ... Fisher" v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 1998 ND 109, ¶ 6, 579 N.W.2d 599, 602 ... [\xC2" ... ...
-
CHAPTER 7 Comprehensive General Liability Exclusions for Coverage A
...North Dakota: Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Lynne, 686 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 2004); Fisher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 579 N.W.2d 599, 604 (N.D. 1998). Ohio: Spears v. Smith, 690 N.E.2d 557, 559 (Ohio App. 1996). Texas: Lennar Corp. v. Great American Insurance Co., 200 S.W.3d 6......
-
Chapter 6
...North Dakota: Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Lynne, 686 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 2004); Fisher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 579 N.W.2d 599, 604 (N.D. 1998). Ohio: Spears v. Smith, 690 N.E.2d 557, 559 (Ohio App. 1996). Texas: Lennar Corp. v. Great American Insurance Co., 200 S.W.3d 6......
-
Liability Insurance Coverage for Breach of Contract Damages - February 2007 - Tort and Insurance Law
...for an additional premium and obtain limited coverage for "design-build" damages. 80. See, e.g., Fisher v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 579 N.W.2d 599, 603 (N.D. 1998) (quoting with approval 2 Long, The Law of Liability Insurance§ 10.05[2] (Matthew Bender, 1998)); American Girl, supra note 10 ......