Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 09-0035.,DA 09-0035. |
| Citation | 354 Mont. 15,2009 MT 418,221 P.3d 666 |
| Parties | Tim GIACOMELLI, Don Hamilton, Yellowstone Horse Racing Alliance, Inc., and Yellowstone County, MetraPark, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Payne Financial Group, Inc. d/b/a Hoiness La Bar, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellants: Allen P. Lanning, Conklin, Nybo & Lanning, P.C.; Great Falls, Montana, David P. Legare, Legare Law Office; Billings, Montana.
For Appellees: Calvin J. Stacey; Stacey & Funyak; Billings, Montana.
¶ 1 Plaintiffs Tim Giacomelli and Don Hamilton (collectively, "Jockeys") appeal the order of the District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, granting summary judgment in favor of Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). We affirm.
¶ 2 We consider the following issues on appeal:
¶ 3 1. Whether the District Court erroneously interpreted the term "exhibitors" from § 23-4-205, MCA, to exclude jockeys;
¶ 4 2. Whether the District Court erred in holding that the Jockeys were not entitled to recovery from Scottsdale, but stated that the Jockeys had a claim against the Montana board of horseracing;
¶ 5 3. Whether the District Court erroneously held that the special event participant exclusion and the athletic or sports participants exclusion in the commercial general liability insurance policy (CGL policy) are unambiguous;
¶ 6 4. Whether the District Court erred in holding that the special event participant exclusion and the athletic or sports participants exclusion did not violate the insureds' reasonable expectations.
¶ 7 The material facts in this case are undisputed. The Jockeys, Giacomelli and Hamilton, suffered injuries in horse races at MetraPark in Billings, Montana, in September 2003. Yellowstone County owns and operates MetraPark. Yellowstone Horse Racing Alliance Inc. (Alliance) leased MetraPark from Yellowstone County to conduct the horse races in which the Jockeys were injured. The Jockeys sued Yellowstone County and Alliance for their injuries, alleging negligence.
¶ 8 Pursuant to a requirement of its lease agreement, Alliance purchased a CGL policy from Scottsdale. Yellowstone County is listed as an additional insured in the CGL policy. The CGL policy covers bodily injuries (not subject to any of numerous exclusions) arising from "the ownership, maintenance or use" of MetraPark or any operations "necessary or incidental" to MetraPark or the horse racing track. Among the exclusions are a "special event participant exclusion" and an "athletic or sports participants" exclusion. The special event participant exclusion specifies that the CGL policy does not provide coverage The exclusion then defines participant to "include performers, stage-hands, volunteers, drivers, setup crew, pitcrew and other persons located in the pit area, security personnel, mechanics, stewards, officials or attendants, or any other person taking part in paragraph 1. or 2. above." The athletic or sports participants exclusion reads, "With respect to any operations shown in the Schedule, this insurance does not apply to `bodily injury' to any person while participating in any sports or athletic contest or exhibition." The schedule refers to the operation of a "Horse Racing Track."
¶ 9 Pursuant to statute, Alliance and Yellowstone County submitted the CGL policy to the Montana board of horseracing. The board of horseracing approved the CGL policy and apparently issued a license to Alliance to conduct horse races.
¶ 10 After the Jockeys sued, Alliance and Yellowstone County contacted Scottsdale about insurance coverage. Scottsdale, citing the special events participant exclusion and athletic and sports participants exclusion, responded that the CGL policy did not cover the Jockeys' injuries. Consequently, Scottsdale refused to defend or indemnify Alliance and Yellowstone County.
¶ 11 Eventually, the Jockeys settled their suits against Alliance and Yellowstone. Pursuant to the settlements, Alliance and Yellowstone consented to the entry of judgments, the Jockeys agreed not to execute on the judgments, and Alliance assigned to the Jockeys any claims that it had against Scottsdale.
¶ 12 The Jockeys then filed the present declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that the CGL policy covered their claims and that Scottsdale had a duty to indemnify and defend Alliance and Yellowstone County. Eventually, the Jockeys moved for summary judgment to invalidate the special events participant and the athletic or sports participants exclusions for violating public policy and to enforce the remainder of the CGL policy (to provide coverage). Scottsdale opposed the motion. The District Court denied the Jockeys' motion, ruling that the exclusions do not violate public policy and are unambiguous, and that Alliance and Yellowstone had no reasonable expectation that the CGL policy would cover jockeys. The Jockeys appealed.
¶ 13 We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo to determine if it complied with Rule 56, M.R. Civ. P. Natl. Cas. Co. v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 2001 MT 28, ¶ 13, 304 Mont. 163, 19 P.3d 223. Viewing the evidence in the light most flattering to the non-moving party and indulging all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, a court correctly grants summary judgment when the evidence presents no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Peyatt v. Moore, 2004 MT 341, ¶ 13, 324 Mont. 249, 102 P.3d 535.
¶ 14 We review a district court's interpretations of statutes and contracts for correctness. Signal Perfection, Ltd. v. Rocky Mt. Bank—Billings, 2009 MT 365, ¶ 10, 353 Mont. 237, ___ P.3d ___; State v. Skyline Broadcasters, Inc., 2009 MT 193, ¶ 12, 351 Mont. 127, 211 P.3d 189.
¶ 15 Issue 1: Whether the District Court erroneously interpreted the term "exhibitors" from § 23-4-205, MCA, to exclude jockeys.
¶ 16 The Jockeys' principal argument is that § 23-4-205, MCA, mandates people licensed to conduct horse races to carry liability insurance covering jockeys. Consequently, they contend, the special event participant and athletic or sports participants exclusions are contrary to public policy and therefore invalid. Thus, they conclude, the Court should enforce the CGL policy—sans the exclusions—to allow the Jockeys to recover the amounts of their judgments from Scottsdale. The District Court nipped this argument in the bud by rejecting its first premise: that § 23-4-205, MCA, mandates liability insurance coverage for jockeys. The Jockeys contend that this was error. The first question, consequently, is whether § 23-4-205, MCA, mandates liability insurance coverage for jockeys.
¶ 17 Section 23-4-205, MCA, reads, "For the protection of the public, exhibitors, and visitors, a person licensed to conduct a race meet or operate a simulcast facility under this chapter shall carry public liability insurance in an amount and form of contract approved by the board." The Jockeys insist that the term "exhibitors" should include jockeys. The District Court, in denying summary judgment to the Jockeys, did not define the term "exhibitor," but concluded that it did not include jockeys. We agree with the District Court.
¶ 18 Statutory interpretation, the goal of which is to give effect to the legislature's intent, begins with the text of the statute. Smith v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 2008 MT 225, ¶ 22, 344 Mont. 278, 187 P.3d 639; Fliehler v. Uninsured Employers Fund, 2002 MT 125, ¶ 13, 310 Mont. 99, 48 P.3d 746. When the legislature has not defined a statutory term, we consider the term to have its plain and ordinary meaning. Czajkowski v. Meyers, 2007 MT 292, ¶ 24, 339 Mont. 503, 172 P.3d 94. To determine the meaning of a statutorily undefined term, we may consider dictionary definitions, e.g. Colmore v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2005 MT 239, ¶ 72, 328 Mont. 441, 121 P.3d 1007, prior case law, e.g. Associated Press v. Mont. Sen. Republican Caucus, 286 Mont. 172, 179-80, 951 P.2d 65, 69-70 (1997), and the larger statutory scheme in which the term appears, e.g. In re Mental Health of E.T., 2008 MT 299, ¶ 13, 345 Mont. 497, 191 P.3d 470. We may also consider similar statutes from other jurisdictions and legislative history for guidance in interpreting a statute. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. State, 2009 MT 5, ¶ 20, 348 Mont. 333, 201 P.3d 132; Mont. Sports Shooting Assn. v. State, 2008 MT 190, ¶ 25, 344 Mont. 1, 185 P.3d 1003.
¶ 19 Here, the term "exhibitor" is not defined in Title 23, chapter 3, MCA, which regulates horseracing at which a pari-mutuel system of wagering is used. Webster's Third International Dictionary defines "exhibitor" as one that "exhibits (as in an exhibition)." Webster's Third International Dictionary 796 (G. & C. Merriam Co.1961). The relevant definition of "exhibit" then is "to present to view: show, display: as . . . to show publicly: put on display in order to attract notice to what is interesting or instructive or for purposes of competition or demonstration." Webster's Third International Dictionary 796. "Exhibition" is defined as "a public show or showing: as . . . a public display of athletic or other skill often in the form of a contest or other game but usu. without importance with respect to winning or losing." Webster's Third International Dictionary 796.
¶ 20 Here, consonant with these dictionary definitions, we determine that the exhibitors of a horse race where pari-mutuel wagering occurs are those people who organize the horse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Gleason v. Cent. United Life Ins. Co.
...is not a negotiated agreement; rather, its conditions are by and large dictated by the insurance company to the insured. Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2009 MT 418, ¶ 42, 354 Mont. 15, 221 P.3d 666 ; Brakeman v. Potomac Ins. Co., 472 Pa. 66, 371 A.2d 193, 196 (1977). The only aspect of ......
-
State v. Christensen
...scheme in which the term appears. State v. Alpine Aviation, Inc. , 2016 MT 283, ¶ 11, 385 Mont. 282, 384 P.3d 1035 ; Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. , 2009 MT 418, ¶ 18, 354 Mont. 15, 221 P.3d 666. This Court will give effect to all provisions of the statute if possible. Bullock , ¶ 53. ¶......
-
ALPS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McLean & McLean, PLLP
...statutes, "the goal ... is to give effect to the legislature’s intent, begin[ning] with the text of the statute." Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Ins. Co ., 2009 MT 418, ¶ 18, 354 Mont. 15, 221 P.3d 666 ; Smith , ¶ 22 ("[t]he starting point for statutory interpretation is the plain language of the......
-
Lenz v. FSC Sec. Corp., DA 17-0124
...be honored notwithstanding the fact that a painstaking study of the policy would have negated those expectations." Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. , 2009 MT 418, ¶ 42, 354 Mont. 15, 221 P.3d 666 (internal punctuation omitted). The reasonable expectations doctrine is a special, public poli......
-
Chapter 3
...4, 2012); Corban v. United Services Automobile Association, 20 So.3d 601 (Miss. 2009). Montana: Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 354 Mont. 15, 221 P.3d 666 (2009). Nebraska: Peterson v. Ohio Casualty Group, 724 N.W.2d 765 (Neb. 2006); Dutton-Lainson Co. v. Continental Insurance Co., ......
-
Chapter 6
...Montana: Winter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 375 Mont. 351, 328 P.3d 665 (2014); Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 354 Mont. 15, 221 P.3d 666 (2009). Nevada: Powell v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 252 P.3d 668 (Nev. 2011). New Jersey: Abouzaid v. Mansard Garden......
-
CHAPTER 7 Comprehensive General Liability Exclusions for Coverage A
...Montana: Winter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 375 Mont. 351, 328 P.3d 665 (2014); Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 354 Mont. 15, 221 P.3d 666 (2009). Nevada: Powell v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 252 P.3d 668 (Nev. 2011). New Jersey: Abouzaid v. Mansard Garden......
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...4, 2012); Corban v. United Services Automobile Association, 20 So.3d 601 (Miss. 2009). Montana: Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 354 Mont. 15, 221 P.3d 666 (2009). Nebraska: Peterson v. Ohio Casualty Group, 724 N.W.2d 765 (Neb. 2006); Dutton-Lainson Co. v. Continental Insurance Co., ......