Truck Ins. Exchange v. Waller, 90-544
| Citation | 828 P.2d 1384,252 Mont. 328 |
| Decision Date | 07 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-544,90-544 |
| Parties | TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a reciprocal inter-insurance exchange, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thomas G. WALLER and Linda L. Waller, Defendants and Appellants, Donald Engelke, Charles Engelke, and Charles and Donald Engelke, d/b/a Charles and Donald Engelke, a partnership, Defendants. and Thomas G. WALLER and Linda L. Waller, Counterclaimants and Appellants, v. TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a reciprocal Inter-insurance Exchange, Counterclaim Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
Page 1384
exchange, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Thomas G. WALLER and Linda L. Waller, Defendants and
Appellants,
Donald Engelke, Charles Engelke, and Charles and Donald
Engelke, d/b/a Charles and Donald Engelke, a
partnership, Defendants.
and
Thomas G. WALLER and Linda L. Waller, Counterclaimants and
Appellants,
v.
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a reciprocal Inter-insurance
Exchange, Counterclaim Defendant and Respondent.
Decided April 10, 1992.
Rehearing Denied May 7, 1992.
Page 1385
[252 Mont. 329] David L. Irving, Glasgow, David S. Evinger, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants and appellants.
[252 Mont. 330] George C. Dalthorp and Peter F. Habein, Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, Billings, for plaintiff and respondent.
GRAY, Justice.
The appellants, Thomas and Linda Waller, appeal from an order of the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, Roosevelt County, which granted summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck Insurance). We affirm.
The issues on appeal are:
1. Did the District Court err in concluding that the language of the Engelkes' insurance policies excluded coverage for Mr. Waller's injuries arising from the airplane accident and, thus, that Truck Insurance was entitled to summary judgment?
2. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to Truck Insurance on the Wallers' misrepresentation counterclaim?
3. Did the District Court err in dismissing the Wallers' bad faith counterclaim?
Truck Insurance brought this action in 1985 seeking a declaration that the insurance policies it issued to Donald and Charles Engelke did not provide coverage for the injuries suffered by Mr. Waller while he was a passenger in an airplane which crashed while piloted by Donald Engelke. Prior to the accident, the Engelkes had insured their farm through Truck Insurance with a Farm Sentinel policy and a commercial umbrella policy. When this declaratory judgment action originated, the Engelkes were defendants in a personal injury action filed by the Wallers. Judgment in that action was entered in 1989 against Donald Engelke.
The Engelkes answered Truck Insurance's declaratory judgment complaint by admitting that the insurance policies provided no coverage for the airplane accident; they are no longer involved in this suit. The Wallers answered by alleging that there was coverage for the airplane accident. They also counterclaimed for misrepresentation against Truck Insurance asserting that after the Engelkes purchased their insurance, Truck Insurance's agent misrepresented to Donald Engelke that Engelke could not obtain insurance coverage for his aircraft because he did not have a pilot's license. The Wallers sought reformation of the insurance policies to provide coverage or estoppel on the part of Truck Insurance to deny coverage.
Truck Insurance filed a motion for summary judgment on all issues, including the Wallers' misrepresentation counterclaim, on [252 Mont. 331] February 14, 1989. The District Court allowed further discovery by the Wallers and the motion for summary judgment was set for hearing on May 30, 1990.
Prior to the hearing, the Wallers filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on May 9, 1990, as to coverage under the policies. In addition, the Wallers were granted leave on May 24, 1990, to amend their answer to add a second counterclaim for bad faith. On May 30, 1990, the day of the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, Truck Insurance filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting the Wallers leave to amend their answer; it subsequently filed its answer to the second counterclaim on June 5, 1990. The court never ruled on Truck Insurance's motion for reconsideration.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Truck Insurance on August 10, 1990. It ruled that the policy language
Page 1386
did not provide coverage for the accident in which Mr. Waller was injured and that the counterclaim for misrepresentation or "coverage by estoppel" was without merit. The court also dismissed the Wallers' counterclaim for bad faith. The Wallers appealed.I.
Did the District Court err in concluding that the language of the Engelkes' insurance policies excluded coverage for Mr. Waller's injuries arising from the airplane accident and, thus, that Truck Insurance was entitled to summary judgment?
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ALPS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McLean & McLean, PLLP
...favor of the insured...."). While the language of an insurance policy governs if it is clear and explicit, Truck Ins. Exch. v. Waller , 252 Mont. 328, 331, 828 P.2d 1384, 1386 (1992), exclusions from coverage will be narrowly and strictly construed because they run "contrary to the fundamen......
-
Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 99-623.
...in its Order. ¶ 51 As this Court has often stated, an element of estoppel is detrimental reliance. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. Waller (1992), 252 Mont. 328, 333, 828 P.2d 1384, 1387; Selley v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 2000 MT 76, ¶ 10, 299 Mont. 127, ¶ 10, 998 P.2d 156 ¶ 10 (listing six el......
-
Alps Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Keller, Reynolds, Drake, Johnson & Gillespie, P.C.
...they run contrary to the fundamental protective purpose of an insurance policy." McLean , ¶ 32 (citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Waller , 252 Mont. 328, 331, 828 P.2d 1384, 1386 (1992) ; Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Oakland , 251 Mont. 352, 356, 825 P.2d 554, 554 (1992) (internal quotation mark......
-
Steadele v. Colony Ins. Co.
...no duty to defend. Grimsrud, ¶ 34. ¶ 26 We applied this principle to third-party claims for coverage in Truck Ins. Exchange v. Waller, 252 Mont. 328, 334–35, 828 P.2d 1384, 1388 (1992). There we determined that third-party claimants could not allege a bad faith claim against an insurer if n......