Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n v. Underwriters
Decision Date | 15 March 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 88-4251-R.,88-4251-R. |
Citation | 761 F. Supp. 1485 |
Parties | GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Michael Kelley, Robert D. Ochs, Golf Course Superintendents Assoc. of America, Topeka, Kan., for Golf Course.
Steven Johnson, Justice King, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, Topeka, Kan., for Underwriters.
Plaintiff, the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America ("GCSAA"), filed this action to recover certain monies pursuant to an insurance policy issued by defendant, Underwriters at Lloyd's of London ("Lloyd's"). GCSAA was a defendant in the case of Zahid Iqbal v. Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, 717 F.Supp. 756, in this court. A jury found that GCSAA illegally retaliated against Mr. Iqbal (terminated his employment) because he had filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against GCSAA. The jury awarded Mr. Iqbal $50,000.00. In the case at bar, GCSAA claims that Lloyd's must indemnify GCSAA for the amount of the judgment.
This case is now before the court upon cross-motions for summary judgment. Oral argument has been conducted upon these motions. It appears from the pleadings and the oral argument that the facts are not in dispute. This is largely a matter of interpreting the insurance contract between the parties and deciding whether Lloyd's should be estopped from declining coverage under the contract.
The relevant facts are as follows. Under the insurance policy in question, Lloyd's agreed to indemnify GCSAA and "its Directors, Officers, employees and the members of its committees for all sums which they shall become legally obligated to pay by reason of any wrongful act committed or alleged to have been committed by them while in the operation, administration, or management of services provided by GCSAA or on behalf of GCSAA,...." (Emphasis supplied.)
"Wrongful act" is defined in the policy as "any negligent act, error, omission, misstatement or misleading statement committed or alleged to have been committed by GCSAA or its Directors, Officers, employees or the members of its committees while in the operation, administration or management of services provided by GCSAA ..."
The policy also expressly excludes any coverage of claims arising out of or directly or indirectly attributable to "dishonesty" of GCSAA.
An endorsement to the policy further provides that the parties "understood and agreed" that the policy did not include coverage of any loss or defense fees or costs with respect to prior discrimination claims against GCSAA which were noted in a financial statement of the association.
After being informed of the Iqbal lawsuit, which was filed in February 1984, a representative of Lloyd's wrote GCSAA on March 28, 1984. This letter stated in part:
After receiving correspondence from Mr. Robert Ochs, GCSAA's attorney, counsel for Lloyd's wrote back on April 24, 1984 regarding coverage of the Iqbal lawsuit. This letter stated in part:
Then, on March 27, 1986 — the last day of the trial of the Iqbal case — counsel for Lloyd's again wrote counsel for GCSAA as follows:
This action is essentially one based upon allegations that your association intentionally discriminated against the claimant due to his national origin. In this regard, Exclusion 5(A) deletes coverage for any dishonesty on the part of the assureds. Therefore, any amounts which may be awarded on the basis of this excluded conduct would not be provided coverage. Additionally, intentional conduct on the part of the assured is not within the meaning of wrongful act as defined by the policy, consequently coverage would not be afforded for an act of discrimination.
The legal principles which govern the construction of a contract of insurance, as well as the burden of proof in this case, were summarized in Dronge v. Monarch Ins. Co., 511 F.Supp. 1, 4-5 (D.Kan.1979), wherein the court drew heavily from the case of Mah v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 218 Kan. 583, 545 P.2d 366 (1976):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Pittsburg, Kan.
...type included in the general coverage provisions of the insurance contract. Id. at 5; Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n of Am. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 761 F.Supp. 1485, at 1489 (D.Kan.1991). Thus, the distinction between "coverage" provisions and exculpating or "exclusionary" cl......
-
Lapeka, Inc. v. Security Nat. Ins. Co., Inc.
...type included in the general coverage provisions of the insurance contract. Id. at 5; Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n of Am. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 761 F.Supp. 1485, at 1489 (D.Kan.1991). Thus, the distinction between "coverage" provisions and exculpating or "exclusionary" cl......
-
TBG, INC. v. Bendis
...1992 WL 73554 (D.Kan. March 19, 1992) (listing the elements of negligent misrepresentation); Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n v. Underwriters, 761 F.Supp. 1485, 1490 (D.Kan.1991) (insurance policy dispute) ("A cause of action exists in Kansas for negligent misrepresentation."); LNS Inv. Co......
-
Becker v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co.
...could be developed at the expense of the insured. See 199 Kan. at 714, 433 P.2d 407 ; see also Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n v. Underwriters , 761 F.Supp. 1485, 1492 (D. Kan. 1991) (prejudice to insured may be inferred from inadequate reservation of rights).Adequacy of reservation of ri......
-
Chapter 9
...Utah 2015) (intentional breaches not covered); Golf Course Superintendents Association of America v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 761 F. Supp. 1485 (D. Kan. 1991) (“wrongful acts” does not include intentional conduct such as retaliation against employee for filing suit under 42 U.S.C. §......
-
CHAPTER 10 Directors and Officers Liability and Professional Liability Insurance
...Utah 2015) (intentional breaches not covered); Golf Course Superintendents Association of America v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 761 F. Supp. 1485 (D. Kan. 1991) (“wrongful acts” does not include intentional conduct such as retaliation against employee for filing suit under 42 U.S.C. §......