Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Estate of Schellenger v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 17, 2017




         This diversity action stems from the aftermath of a tragic, multiple-fatality automobile accident involving plaintiffs' family members. Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment that coverage exists under defendant's General Liability Policy for damages resulting from the accident. Defendant contends that plaintiffs cannot recover under the policy because specific exclusions apply, and further because they have already received the maximum payment under a separate Business Auto Policy by defendant's affiliate. This matter is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkts. 25, 27). For the reasons provided below, the court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment, and denies plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

         I. Uncontroverted Facts

         The court finds the following facts to be uncontroverted for purposes of summary judgment.

         On August 16, 2014, William Howard Baker d/b/a HB Landscaping (the “insured”) was driving a pickup truck transporting a riding lawnmower on a trailer in the course and scope of his employment. The trailer popped off its hitch, and the momentum of the trailer carried it into oncoming traffic. The trailer collided with a motorcycle driven by Shawn Schellenger, along with Danielle Schellenger as a passenger. Both died as a result of the accident.

         The insured was covered by two insurance policies: Business Auto Policy No. 37 UEC AQ5579 SA (“BA Policy”) and General Liability Policy No. 37 SBA AM1625 (“GL Policy”). Plaintiffs recovered the full policy limits under the BA Policy issued by defendant's affiliate, Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, for damages caused by the accident. However, plaintiffs' claim was denied by defendant under the GL Policy.

         Additional facts will be related, as necessary, in connection with the court's analysis of defendant's motion.

         II. Summary Judgment Standards

         In diversity cases, the substantive law of the forum state (Kansas) governs the analysis of the underlying claims, but the court applies federal law in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate. Hill v. Allstate Ins. Co., 479 F.3d 735, 739 (10th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” when it is essential to the claim, and the issues of fact are “genuine” if the proffered evidence permits a reasonable jury to decide the issue in either party's favor. Haynes v. Level 3 Communs., 456 F.3d 1215, 1219 (10th Cir. 2006). The movant bears the initial burden of proof and must show the lack of evidence on an essential element of the claim. Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 353 F.3d 848, 851 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). The nonmovant must then bring forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005). The court views all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 927 (10th Cir. 2004).

         III. Discussion

         Defendant's denial letter provided several grounds for denying coverage: (1) the auto exclusion; (2) the mobile equipment exclusion; and (3) exhaustion of the policy limit under the BA Policy precluded overlapping coverage from the GL Policy. As the insurer, defendant bears the burden to establish that the GL Policy's auto and mobile equipment exclusions preclude coverage of the accident. See Union Ins. Co. v. Mendoza, 374 F. App'x 796, 800 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Under Kansas law, an insurer bears the burden of proving that coverage is excluded.”). “To be enforced, policy exclusions must be specific and unambiguous.” Cont'l Cas. Co. v. MultiService Corp., No. CIV A 06-2256-CM, 2009 WL 1788422, at *2 (D. Kan. June 23, 2009); City of Salina, Kan. v. Md. Cas. Co., 856 F.Supp. 1467, 1476 (D. Kan. 1994) (“Under Kansas law, the court narrowly construes restrictions or limitations of coverage.”). But courts should not strain to create an ambiguity where, in common sense, none exists. Newton v. Nicholas, 887 P.2d 1158, 1164 (Kan.Ct.App. 1995).

         A. Exclusions

         The GL Policy contains a Business Liability Coverage Form, which states that defendant will “pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury', ‘property damage' or ‘personal and advertising injury' to which this insurance applies.” (Dkt. 26, at 6). However, the Business Liability Coverage Form also contains an auto exclusion found in Section B. Specifically, Section B excludes bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an auto. “Use includes operation and ‘loading or unloading'.” Id. at 7. The term “auto” is defined as “a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or equipment.” Id.

         Section B also contains a mobile equipment exclusion, and specifically excludes coverage for injuries and/or damages arising out of “[t]he transportation of ‘mobile equipment' by an ‘auto' owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured[ ] . . . .” Id. at 8. “Mobile Equipment” includes “vehicles designed for use principally off public roads” as well ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.