State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Paulson
Decision Date | 03 June 1988 |
Docket Number | 87-260,Nos. 87-259,s. 87-259 |
Citation | 756 P.2d 764 |
Parties | STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant (Defendant), v. Herb J. PAULSON, Appellee (Plaintiff). Herb J. PAULSON, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
John A. Sundahl of Godfrey, Sundahl & Jorgenson, Cheyenne, for State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
Stanley K. Hathaway and Blair J. Trautwein of Hathaway, Speight & Kunz, Cheyenne, for Herb J. Paulson.
Before BROWN, C.J., THOMAS, CARDINE and MACY, JJ., and ROONEY, Retired Justice.
This appeal in Case No. 87-259, by State Farm Fire and Casualty company (hereafter referred to as "appellant") is from a judgment entered against appellant after a non-jury trial declaring that an insurance policy issued to Herb J. Paulson (hereafter referred to as "appellee") covered damage resulting from the entrance of water and hail into the basement of appellee's house after a severe storm. The basic issue presented on appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in declaring the existence of such coverage.
We reverse.
Uncontroverted are the facts that hail, followed by hail and rain, fell in Cheyenne on August 1, 1985; that the storm was severe; that hail broke sections of three basement windows on the east side of appellee's residence in Cheyenne; that water and hail, which were generated within a few blocks of the residence (a 62-acre drainage area), entered the basement through the windows; that the high water line was several inches above the basement and water completely filled the basement; that less water would have entered had the windows not been broken; and that the policy in question was in force at the time and provided in pertinent part:
An insurance policy is a contract (§ 26-15-101 et seq., W.S.1977).
Hursh Agency, Inc. v. Wigwam Homes, Inc., Wyo., 664 P.2d 27, 31 (1983).
The only exception to construing insurance contracts as other contracts are construed is the requirement that ambiguous language in an insurance contract is to be liberally construed in favor of the insured.
Worthington v. State, Wyo., 598 P.2d 796, 806 (1979).
The basic considerations for construing a contract are summarized in Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463, 465 (1980):
The language of the contract quoted supra is not ambiguous. 1 It is plain and clear. It does not have a double meaning, nor is it indefinite or obscure in its meaning. It is definite in expression and can be understood in only one way. It has but a single meaning, and that meaning is not uncertain. It provides that there is no coverage for loss due to "water damage" as "water damage" is defined in the contract, i.e., that resulting from "flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, * * * or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by the wind." Appellee argues that the loss was caused by "rain"--which is not listed under the contract definition of "water damage"--and therefore coverage existed. Appellant argues that the loss was caused by "surface water" and therefore is within the contract exclusion. This resulting issue was accepted by the trial court as the crux of the case. It said, in the Declaratory Judgment, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
The trial court also recognized that contract language to be unambiguous--but it inconsistently concluded that the words "rain," "flood," and "surface water" were latently ambiguous. It said, in its second Conclusions of Law:
We cannot accept this conclusion. A policy must be construed according to its plain language, giving to the words their common and ordinary meaning.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
INTERN. SURPLUS LINES v. Univ. of Wyo. Res. Corp., 92-CV-0310-B.
...a contract between the insurer and the insured. See Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796, 806 (Wyo.1979), cited in State Farm and Cas. Co. v. Paulson, 756 P.2d 764, 766 (Wyo.1988); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Farmer's Ins. Group, 569 P.2d 1260, 1262 (Wyo. 1977). As a res......
-
Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Republic Ins. Co., 95-62
...County School Dist No. 1; Hursh Agency, Inc. v. Wigwam Homes, Inc., 664 P.2d 27 (Wyo.1983); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Paulson, 756 P.2d 764 (Wyo.1988); Compass Ins. Co. v. Cravens, Dargan & Co., 748 P.2d 724 (Wyo.1988). A corollary of this rule is that the interpretation of the contra......
-
Western Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Univ. of ND, 20010118.
...Kane v. Royal Ins. Co., 768 P.2d 678, 680-84 (Colo. 1989) (discussing ordinary meaning of flood); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Paulson, 756 P.2d 764, 769-71 (Wyo.1988) (discussing insurance cases defining flood). Insurance law generally recognizes sewer backup as a peril that is separate a......
-
Sinclair Wyo. Ref. Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd.
...Int'l Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Wyo. Coal Refin. Sys., Inc. , 52 F.3d 901, 903 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing State Farm & Cas. Co. v. Paulson , 756 P.2d 764, 765 (Wyo. 1988) ); accord Amoco Prod. Co. v. EM Nominee P'ship, 2 P.3d 534, 540 (Wyo. 2000). "The contract is to be interpreted by an obje......
-
Chapter 4
...Co. v. National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, 225 P.3d 484 (Wash. App. 2010). Wyoming: State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Paulson, 756 P.2d 764 (Wyo. 1988) (flood constitutes a body of water overflowing or inundating land not usually covered with water). [120] See Ebbing v. State Farm Fire......
-
CHAPTER 4 First-Party Insurance
...Co. v. National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, 225 P.3d 484 (Wash. App. 2010). Wyoming: State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Paulson, 756 P.2d 764 (Wyo. 1988) (flood constitutes a body of water overflowing or inundating land not usually covered with water). [121] See Ebbing v. State Farm Fire......