 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Westfield Insurance Group v. J.P.'S Wharf9/17/2004
ountry club.
In STK Enterprises, Inc. v. Crusader Insurance Company, the insured sought coverage for the costs of defending and settling three racial discrimination claims brought by patrons who were refused entry into the insured's restaurant and bar. An Oregon appellate court held that the same "wrongful eviction" clause as that considered in Forrest City covers only claims arising from a possessory interest in the property. Similarly, in Zelda v. Northland Insurance Company, a California appellate court concluded that the same "wrongful eviction" language covers tort claims involving interference with an interest in real property, not claims made by business patrons.
We are satisfied that Westfield's "wrongful eviction" clause plainly requires that the claim involve a possessory interest in property, and adopt the reasoning of the Zelda court:
n insurance policy, like any other contract, must be construed in its entirety, with each clause lending meaning to the other. The proposal that the policy definition covers any wrongful "eviction," understood in the popular sense, fails to give the phrase "from, a room, dwelling or premises that the person occupies" a function in the definition. Because an eviction, popularly understood, is necessarily from somewhere the phrase in question is redundant unless it means something other than merely "from somewhere." In this regard, we observe that the term "to occupy," in one of its popular senses, means "to reside in as an owner or tenant." Thus, the only reasonable explanation for the additional phrase is to clarify that the wrongfulness of the ejection must consist in, or attach to, an invasion of the right of occupation. Since the patrons who filed their racial discrimination complaints against Wharf had no possessory interest in the restaurant premises, the "wrongful eviction" provision in Wharf's insurance policy does not cover expenses it incurred in resolving those complaints.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Superior Court is reversed.
Page 1 2 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|