Haworth v. Jantzen

• Citation: 2006 OK 35,172 P.3d 193
• Decision Date: 23 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 101,726.,101,726.
• Parties: Densi HAWORTH, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Brett Dewayne Haworth, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Theodore JANTZEN, individually, and as partner in Jantzen Farm and Ranch Enterprises; Mrs. Theodore Jantzen, individually and as partner in Jantzen Farm and Ranch Enterprises; and Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants, and Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Policy No. 421565031, Policy No. 42165015, Garnishee/Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

172 P.3d 193

2006 OK 35

Densi HAWORTH, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Brett Dewayne Haworth, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Theodore JANTZEN, individually, and as partner in Jantzen Farm and Ranch Enterprises; Mrs. Theodore Jantzen, individually and as partner in Jantzen Farm and Ranch Enterprises; and Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants, and Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Policy No. 421565031, Policy No. 42165015, Garnishee/Appellant.

No. 101,726.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 23, 2006.

Rehearing Denied September 11, 2006.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III; Honorable Ronald G. Franklin, Trial Judge

¶ 0 In June of 2001, Brett Haworth died after he collided with a pickup truck driven by Theodore Jantzen. Haworth's widow, Densi Haworth, brought a wrongful death action against Jantzen. A stipulated journal entry of judgment was filed and damages were set. Jantzen's insurer, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company paid the policy limits of an automobile policy and the widow initiated garnishment proceedings to determine if coverage existed under an additional farm and ranch policy. The trial judge, Honorable Ronald G. Franklin, granted summary judgment to the widow. Farm Bureau appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, determining that the farm and ranch policy unambiguously excluded the pickup driven by Jantzen. We hold that because the policy terms are ambiguous, the insurance contract was properly construed against the insurer. We remand the cause to the Court of Civil Appeals to address assignments of error left unresolved by its prior disposition.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED AND MATTER REMANDED TO COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

G. Todd Ralstin, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellee.

Steve L. Lawson, Oklahoma City, OK, for Garnishee/Appellant.

KAUGER, J.

¶ 1 The dispositive issue presented on certiorari is whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment when it determined that because certain insurance policy exclusions were ambiguous as matter of law, the contract must be construed against the insurer to provide coverage. The Court of Civil Appeals determined that the policy exclusions were unambiguous and did not provide coverage. We hold that because the policy terms are ambiguous, the insurance contract was properly construed against the insurer and we remand the cause to the Court of Civil Appeals to address the assignments of error left unresolved.

FACTS

¶ 2 On June 14, 2001, Theodore Jantzen [Jantzen] parked his 2001 Dodge pickup truck in the entry to a wheat field he farmed near Canton, Oklahoma, on State Highway 58A. While backing out of the field, Jantzen collided with Brett Dewayne Haworth [the deceased], who was traveling north on the highway on his motorcycle. Haworth died from his injuries later that same day in a local hospital.

¶ 3 At the time of the accident, Jantzen carried two insurance policies issued by the appellant, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company [Farm Bureau]: a farm and ranch policy with a $500,000 policy limit and an automobile policy with a $250,000 policy limit. The appellee, the deceased's widow and special administrator of his estate, Densi Haworth [Haworth/widow], brought a negligence action against Jantzen on October 23, 2001.

¶ 4 On March 7, 2003, the parties stipulated to a judgment of $775,000 which by its terms, included any interest, costs, or other relief that the court could award. The judgment provided that Jantzen pay $25,000 out of his own pocket, Farm Bureau pay the $250,000 limit of the automobile policy, and that Haworth seek the remaining $500,000 through a garnishment proceeding against Farm Bureau so that coverage under the farm and ranch policy could be determined.

¶ 5 On April 21, 2004, Haworth filed garnishment proceedings seeking the $500,000 limit of the farm and ranch policy, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The court granted summary judgment to the widow on January 18, 2005, finding that because the farm and ranch policy was ambiguous, it had to be construed against Farm Bureau. The trial court awarded Haworth the $500,000 policy limits, which included pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees.

¶ 6 Farm Bureau appealed and on February 11, 2005, the widow filed a counter-petition insisting that the trial court erred in failing to award her reasonable attorney fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. On November 10, 2005, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, determining that the farm and ranch policy unambiguously excluded the pickup driven by Jantzen. We granted certiorari on January 30, 2006.

¶ 7 BECAUSE THE POLICY TERMS ARE AMBIGUOUS, THE INSURANCE CONTRACT WAS PROPERLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER.

¶ 8 The language in controversy is found in the "EXCLUSIONS" section of Jantzen's farm and ranch policy. The policy provides in pertinent part:

"EXCLUSIONS

Under PERSONAL LIABILITY — COVERAGE G and MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS — COVERAGE H, we do not cover:

1. Bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or negligent entrustment of: . . .

b. land motor vehicles subject to motor vehicle registration owned or operated or rented or loaned to an insured person . . .

c. land motor vehicles, other than golf carts while used for golfing, if the bodily injury or property damage occurs away from the insured premises ..." [Emphasis in original.]

¶ 9 Farm Bureau argues that the policy unambiguously excludes coverage of the pickup driven by Jantzen. Haworth contends that the policy exclusions are ambiguous and therefore must be construed to provide coverage. We note at the outset that resolution of this cause does not center around any fact question as to where the pickup was precisely located. When Farm Bureau appealed, it asserted that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based upon a determination that the policy was ambiguous, not that summary judgment was improper because a material fact issue existed regarding whether the accident occurred off of the premises. We need not be concerned with whether the issue was properly raised for appeal, because the fact question of precisely where the pickup was located is not a material fact question relevant to this cause.

¶ 10 At the trial level, Farm Bureau argued that there were not any disputed facts which could preclude summary judgment. Nevertheless, it also insisted that nothing had been shown to suggest that the 1800 acres described on the declarations page included anything more than the Jantzen's home and surrounding land. This assertion is contrary to the declarations page which includes 120 acres in Dewey County, plus an additional 1600 acres of farmland and contrary to Jantzen's affidavit which states his residence consisted of only 120 acres in Dewey County. Farm Bureau presented nothing to support an assertion that the field at issue was not part of the 1800 acres covered on the declarations sheet of the policy as "farm premises."

¶ 11 Farm Bureau also alternatively argued that, although the pickup may have been partially in the field or at the entrance to the field at the time of the accident, the injury occurred at the back of the pickup which was on the highway and as a result the accident was excluded by the policy provision which excludes coverage for injuries or damage occurring away from the insured premises. This argument concerning the point of impact being at the back of the pickup ignores the fact that control of the pickup remained with the driver.

¶ 12 Pursuant to 69 O.S.2001 § 1202, an owner of land bound by a highway is presumed to own the property to the center of the road, unless the contrary is shown.¹ A road is generally only an easement for public use and fee simple title is vested in the abutting landowners burdened only by an easement.² Farm Bureau did not attempt to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, regardless of whether a portion of the pickup was on the highway and in the entrance to the field, it was in fact located within the premises of the property owner as a matter of law.

¶ 13 An insurance policy is a contract,³ and a contract is to be construed as a whole, giving effect to each of its parts.⁴ The interpretation of an insurance contract and whether it is ambiguous is determined by the court as a matter of law.⁵ An insurance contract is ambiguous only if it is susceptible to two constructions on its face from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent layperson, not from that of a lawyer.⁶ However, this Court will not indulge in forced or constrained interpretations to create and then construe ambiguities in insurance contracts.⁷

¶ 14 The insurer employs the terms "land motor vehicle" and "land motor vehicles subject to registration" in the policy exclusion in an attempt to limit liability. However, the terms "land motor vehicle" and "land motor vehicle subject to registration" are not defined in the policy. A "vehicle" is statutorily defined as any device in, upon, or by which any person or property may be transported or drawn upon a highway.⁸ "Motor vehicle" is statutorily defined as any self-propelled vehicle.⁹ "Registration" pertains to the requirement to obtain a certificate or license plate from the state.¹⁰

¶ 15 In Oklahoma, all motor vehicles, travel trailers, commercial trailers, all-terrain vehicles, and motorcycles must be registered.¹¹ Pickup trucks are subject to registration in Oklahoma. Adding the adjective "land" to the term "motor vehicle" does not create any further reasonable ambiguity in this case. Taken in their ordinary sense, the terms "land motor vehicle subject to registration" and "land motor vehicle" unambiguously apply to Jantzen's pickup truck.

¶ 16 The ambiguity in the policy language lies in the apparent contradiction of exclusions 1(b)...