W. J. Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 12016

Decision Date03 October 1975
Docket NumberNo. 12016,12016
Citation541 P.2d 385,112 Ariz. 285
PartiesW. J. KROEGER CO., an Arizona Corporation, Appellant, v. The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Peter A. Neisser, Phoenix, for appellant.

Burch, Cracchiolo, Levie, Guyer & Weyl, by Joseph L. Moore and Michael E. Bradford, Phoenix, for appellee.

HAYS, Justice.

The court has jurisdiction of the instant case pursuant to Rule 47(e)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court. The appeal is from a summary judgment granted to The Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) on its motion on the counterclaim of W. J. Kroeger Company (Kroeger).

Kroeger was a wholesale and retail distributor of farm equipment for resale to farmers. Travelers is an insurance company. On August 17, 1971, Travelers filed a complaint contending that Kroeger had entered into a contract of insurance with Travelers on October 1, 1966, with respect to which there remained due, owing and unpaid a premium of $2925.88. Kroeger answered admitting the existence of an insurance policy, but denying its specific provisions because of the loss or destruction of its records. Kroeger also alleged as a setoff and counterclaim that a claim under the policy had been incurred on December 1, 1966, and refused by Travelers in the amount of $2318.80. Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim which motion was granted by the trial judge. Kroeger now appeals.

By its motion, Travelers put into issue the existence of the insurance policy, the contents of which were denied in effect as unknown by Kroeger. Travelers put into the record a copy of the insurance policy from its business records attested to by its agent under oath at his deposition. An accompanying affidavit is not specifically required. Rule 56(a), (c), Rules of Civil Procedure. Kroeger denied the validity of the contract because its own copy was lost or destroyed. However, the counterclaim and setoff of Kroeger is premised on an insurance policy having been issued. The deposition of Kroeger makes clear that a policy was obtained approximately October 1, 1966, from the deposed agent of Travelers. The paragraph on which Travelers based its motion was standard for the type of policy according to the deposition of the same agent.

If the moving party on a motion has made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the opponent of the motion has the burden to produce sufficient evidence that there is indeed an issue. Dobson v. Grand Internat'l Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 101 Ariz. 501, 421 P.2d 520 (1966). Where the facts set forth in support of the motion are not controverted by the opposing party, they are presumed to be true. Watts v. Hogan, 111 Ariz. 536, 534 P.2d 741 (1975). The opposing party cannot fail to press his argument and defeat the motion by a simple contention that an issue of fact exists; he must show that evidence is available that would justify a trial. Dobson v. Grand Internat'l Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, supra.

We find that Travelers made its prima facie showing on the issue of the existence and contents of the insurance contract and that Kroeger did not meet its burden.

Kroeger failed to bring an action against Travelers for the refusal of Kroeger's claim made pursuant to the insurance policy until Kroeger filed its answer, setoff and counterclaim in the present case. Travelers relies upon the following paragraph from the policy in its motion:

'Suit--No suit, action, or proceeding for the recovery of any claim under this Supplemental Contract shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless the same be commenced within 12 months next after discovery by the Insured of the occurrence which gives rise to the claim, provided however, that if by the laws of the State within which this Supplemental Contract is issued such limitation is invalid, then any such claims shall be void unless such action, suit or proceeding be commenced within the shortest limit of time permitted by the laws of such State.'

A.R.S. § 20--1115 provides that no insurance policy operative in this state shall contain a condition limiting the time within which an action may be brought to a period of less than two years for this type of policy. The policy at issue provided that an action must be commenced within 12 months after the discovery of the occurrence giving rise to the action or 'within the shortest limit of time permitted by the laws' of Arizona. The one-year limitation would be void as contrary to the statute. Travelers argues that by its language, the policy invoked the two-year limitation. Kroeger argues that the entire provision is voided by the one-year limitation and therefore the applicable statute is A.R.S. § 12--548 providing for a six-year statute of limitation for a suit on a contract in writing on a debt. The answer and counterclaim was filed more than four years after the incident giving rise to the claim.

Paragraphs in insurance policies similar to the one at issue in this suit have been the subject of previous litigation in this state. E.g., First Security Bank v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 12 Ariz.App. 476, 472...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Doe v. Roe
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1998
    ...opposing party bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence that an issue of fact does exist. W.J. Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 112 Ariz. 285, 286, 541 P.2d 385, 386 (1975). In opposition to the father's motion, Plaintiff produced such evidence, offering therapist's affidavits......
  • SiteLock LLC v. GoDaddy.com LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • March 2, 2022
    ...that SiteLock might receive by the amount that SiteLock has already injured GoDaddy. See, e.g. , W. J. Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co. , 112 Ariz. 285, 541 P.2d 385, 388 (1975) ("Recoupment is an equitable doctrine [in which] the claim of the defendant can be used to reduce or to elimin......
  • Molever v. Roush
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 1986
    ...exists evidence of genuine issues for trial. Portonova v. Wilkinson, 128 Ariz. 501, 627 P.2d 232 (1981); W.J. Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 112 Ariz. 285, 541 P.2d 385 (1975). In the absence of controverting affidavits, moreover, any facts alleged by affidavits attached to a party......
  • Empire Gas Corp. v. UPG, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1989
    ...276, 279 (E.D.Tex.1954); Forest County Coop. Ass'n (A.A.L.) v. Manis, 235 So.2d 925, 926 (Miss.1970); W.J. Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Ind. Co., 112 Ariz. 285, 541 P.2d 385, 387 (1974); 80 C.J.S., Set-off and Counterclaim, § 26, p. This court rejects ground (a) of Empire's first point. For the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT