Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co.
Decision Date | 31 May 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 87,005.,87,005. |
Citation | 273 Kan. 915,46 P.3d 1120 |
Parties | GALE LIGGATT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee, and JANET HATHAWAY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. GALE LIGGATT, Defendant/ Appellant, and EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Garnishee/Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Michael W. Murphy, of Galloway, Wiegers & Heeney, PA, of Marysville, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant Gale Liggatt.
William J. Pauzauskie, of Oyler & Pauzauskie, of Topeka, was on the brief for appellant Janet Hathaway.
Steve R. Fabert, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP., argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Employers Mutual Casualty Company.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Passenger Janet Hathaway filed a tort action against driver Gale Liggatt for injuries she sustained in a one vehicle motorcycle accident. Liggatt's insurer, Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMC), denied coverage and refused to defend based upon a specific policy exclusion for a vehicle with less than four wheels. Hathaway's garnishment action against EMC based upon a consent judgment and Liggatt's breach of contract action against EMC for attorney fees expended in defending Hathaway's tort action both failed on summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to EMC, concluding that the clearly expressed intent of the parties and not the reasonable expectations of the insured controlled. We agree and affirm.
Hathaway was a passenger on a three-wheeled vehicle operated by Liggatt. She was severely injured when the vehicle ran off the road. Hathaway was the owner of the vehicle. She filed suit against Liggatt for personal injuries she suffered in the single vehicle accident. EMC refused to defend the action based upon its determination that its policy of insurance covering Liggatt's vehicle, which also happened to be a motorcycle, did not provide coverage for his use of Liggatt's three-wheeled vehicle. Liggatt was defended under reservation of rights by an attorney retained by his homeowners insurance company.
After notice to EMC, a consent judgment was entered against Liggatt in favor of Hathaway for $676,846.44. Within the same action, Hathaway obtained a garnishment to collect her judgment against EMC, and Liggatt filed a separate breach of contract action against EMC to recover his attorney fees in defending Hathaway's action against him. The two cases were consolidated, and the trial court entered summary judgment for EMC and dismissed Liggatt's claim for attorney fees.
We are called upon to review the decision of the trial court in its interpretation of the policy of insurance issued by EMC to Liggatt. The interpretation of a written instrument is a question of law, and regardless of the construction given to a written instrument by the trial court, the appellate court may construe the instrument and determine its effect. Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Cos. Co., 265 Kan. 317, 324, 961 P.2d 1213 (1998). However, because we agree with the trial court, its decision and the appellant's response identify and clarify the issues we must resolve in this opinion. For that reason we quote at length from the trial court's memorandum decision.
The trial court ruled as follows:
The trial court had previously noted that the parties did not dispute that the motorcycle involved in the accident was not owned by Liggatt and that the vehicle was not a replacement or substitute vehicle under Liggatt's policy with EMC. The court additionally noted that "[t]here is no question that the accident vehicle had fewer than four wheels." The question for the trial court was whether the accident "arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motorized vehicle having fewer than four wheels which was excluded from coverage under the terms of EMC's policy."
Hathaway acknowledged that standing alone, the B.1. exclusion is unambiguous. However, she asserts that the vehicle described in the declarations is a motorcycle and the exclusion becomes patently ambiguous because it is in conflict with the specifically described vehicle in the declarations and is, therefore, void. Her contention appears to be that the policy would have covered a four-wheel vehicle and that because coverage extends to such four-wheel vehicles, it would be reasonable to assume that coverage would also extend to a vehicle with fewer than four wheels. She further contends that because of excessive amendments to the base policy, including amendments which are not particularly relevant to the issue in this case, the policy as a whole is incomprehensible.
In disagreeing with Hathaway's response, the trial court noted that the only way to reach the conclusion urged by Hathaway would be to completely read the exclusion for the use of vehicles with fewer than four wheels out of the policy. The trial court further concluded:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.
...prudent insured would understand the language to mean, not by what the insurer intended the language to mean. Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co., 273 Kan. 915, Syl. ¶ 3, 46 P.3d 1120 (2002).” Iron Horse Auto, Inc. v. Lititz Mut. Ins., 283 Kan. 834, 839, 156 P.3d 1221 (2007). And, to the......
-
Short v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc.
...utilize these doctrines when a contract is ambiguous. 14 Kan. App. 2d at 324, 789 P.2d 1196 ; see also Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co. , 273 Kan. 915, 923, 46 P.3d 1120 (2002) ("Unless there is a finding that an insurance policy is ambiguous, the reasonable expectations doctrine does......
-
Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...the intent of the parties." BancInsure, Inc. v. F.D.I.C. , 796 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Liggatt v. Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co. , 273 Kan. 915, 46 P.3d 1120, 1125 (2002) ). Furthermore,[u]nambiguous contracts are enforced according to their plain, general, and common meaning in ord......
-
Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger
...677 P.2d 1004 ; Wichita Clinic, P.A. v. Louis , 39 Kan. App. 2d 848, 852, 185 P.3d 946 (2008). Accord Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. , 273 Kan. 915, 923, 46 P.3d 1120 (2002) (When contract terms are unambiguous, " ‘the court may not make another contract for the parties’ " but rather mu......
-
Freedom of Contract and the Kansas Supreme Court
...the form terms. Gowing v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., 207 Kan. 78, 80, 483 P2d 1072, 1075 (1971). [6] Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 273 Kan. 915, 921, 46 P.3d 1120, 1125 (2002) ("A party to a contract has a duty to read the contract before signing it, and the failure to read a contrac......
-
Freedom of Contract and the Kansas Supreme Court
...the form terms. Gowing v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., 207 Kan. 78, 80, 483 P.2d 1072, 1075 (1971). [6] Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 273 Kan. 915, 921, 46 P.3d 1120, 1125 (2002) ("A party to a contract has a duty to read the contract before signing it, and the failure to read a contra......