State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wolff, 90-5268ND
| Decision Date | 25 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5268ND,90-5268ND |
| Citation | 926 F.2d 755 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. Myron WOLFF, Appellant. Larry Dalzell, Karl Knippling, Connie Knippling, and Joe Jahnel. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Steven A. Storslee and Curtis L. Wike, Bismarck, N.D., for appellant.
Carlton J. Hunke and Lori J. Beck, Fargo, N.D., for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, MAGILL and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
In this declaratory action, Myron Wolff appeals from the district court's 1 ruling denying insurance coverage for his loss of consortium claim. We affirm.
In July 1988, Myron Wolff and his wife Katherine were involved in a car accident with a vehicle driven by Larry Dalzell, the son of Karl and Connie Knippling. Joe Jahnel owned the vehicle that Larry Dalzell was driving. Jahnel was insured by American Family Mutual Insurance. The Knipplings were insured by State Farm Mutual Insurance. The accident rendered Katherine Wolff a quadriplegic.
On August 3, 1989, Myron Wolff filed a personal injury action in federal court based on diversity of the parties, alleging that Larry Dalzell's negligence caused the accident, as did Joe Jahnel's negligent entrustment of the car to Dalzell. All claims were eventually settled except for Wolff's claim for loss of consortium. State Farm has denied coverage for Wolff's claim, taking the position that because it has already paid its $100,000 "Each Person" liability limit to his wife, it has no further liability. 2
On September 5, 1989, State Farm filed this case, a declaratory judgment action, asking the court to determine whether State Farm's policy covered Wolff's claim for loss of consortium. Larry Dalzell, Joe Jahnel, and the Knipplings counterclaimed, alleging that Wolff's claim for loss of consortium was covered by the State Farm policy.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of State Farm. The district court noted that while North Dakota has recognized a cause of action for loss of consortium, the North Dakota Supreme Court has not yet declared that loss of consortium is a separate bodily injury for purposes of insurance coverage.
Wolff argues on appeal that State Farm's policy provides coverage for his $100,000 loss of consortium claim. As mentioned above, State Farm has denied coverage, taking the position that its $100,000 payment to Mrs. Wolff discharged its liability under the "Each Person" section of the insurance policy. Myron argues in response that the "Each Accident" limit of liability section of the policy applies.
State Farm argues that the "Each Person" limit of liability clearly applies, because under the plain language of that section, "bodily injury" includes all injury and damages to others resulting from the underlying injury. State Farm argues that Wolff's claim necessarily results from his wife having been rendered a quadriplegic, and thus that the claim is included in the "Each Person" section's coverage of all injuries to others resulting from bodily injury to one person. Therefore, under the plain language of the policy, State Farm argues, the $100,000 "Each Person" limit must apply.
Wolff contends that his loss of consortium claim is not derivative, but a wholly independent cause of action. See Herold v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 761 F.2d 1241, 1249 (8th Cir.1985). This is apparently meant to get around the "resulting from" language in the "Each Person" section. This argument, however, is irrelevant, because Wolff is arguing the legal attributes of a loss of consortium claim, and ignoring the nature of the injury. He cannot deny that without his wife's injuries, he would not have the cause of action. Therefore, his injury results from his wife's injuries, and the "Each Person" limit of liability applies.
Wolff argues that the "Each Accident" limit applies because his loss of consortium claim includes a claim for bodily injury because of his emotional distress and psychological injury. State Farm responds that the "Each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Reis, 1D05-576.
...subject to a single "Each Person" coverage limit. State Farm relies upon the Eighth Circuit's opinion in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Wolff, 926 F.2d 755 (8th Cir.1991), as support for its construction of the policy language. In that case, Ms. Wolff was rendered a quadri-pl......
-
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. Brown
...are supported by cases from other jurisdictions construing similar or identical policy language. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wolff, 926 F.2d 755 (8th Cir.1991) (holding, under the same policy language as that found in the present case, that a husband's injury — loss of cons......