 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Makarka v. Great American Insurance Co.12/22/2000
[No. 5348 - December 22, 2000]
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Rene Gonzalez, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Great American Insurance Company refused to defend or indemnify its insured, Chris Callihan, because the "bodily injury" he allegedly caused to the Makarka family by negligently repairing a car occurred after Callihan's policy had been canceled. On appeal from summary judgment in favor of Great American, the Makarka family -- now Callihan's successor in interest -- claims that coverage for the bodily injury was triggered by either of two events occurring before the policy was canceled: Callihan's negligent repair or property damage that occurred in the course of the repair. But because the policy's language unambiguously required the policy to be in effect when the Makarka family's bodily injuries occurred, not when Callihan committed his negligent acts, we affirm the superior court's summary judgment order.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On August 27, 1991, Shane Voliva ran a red light with his truck and hit the Makarka family's automobile. The impact killed three passengers and injured two others. Voliva was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Later, the Makarka family (referred to as Makarka and "he" for convenience) learned that the brakes on Voliva's truck had been serviced ten months before the accident by Chris Callihan at Ride- n-Shine, a garage owned by Gerik, Incorporated (Gerik). Makarka then sued Gerik and Callihan.
Gerik tendered a claim for defense or indemnity to Great American, its insurer when Callihan worked on Voliva's brakes, and to Interstate Fire and Casualty, Gerik's insurer when the accident occurred. Great American refused to cover the claim, maintaining that the "occurrence date of plaintiff's injuries [fell] outside of Great American's coverages." Interstate accepted the tender and defended Gerik and Callihan in a wrongful death and personal injury suit, which the parties settled.
As part of the settlement, Callihan confessed judgment and assigned his claim against Great American to Makarka. Relying on Callihan's confession of liability, Makarka then sued Great American, alleging that Callihan's negligent repair of Voliva's brakes had caused bodily injury to Makarka, that the Great American policy was in effect and covered Callihan when he performed the faulty work, and that Great American therefore breached its duty to defend and indemnify Callihan on the underlying claim.
Great American moved for summary judgment. The superior court granted the motion, explaining that the bodily injury that Makarka sustained in the collision was the event that triggered coverage under the terms of the Great American policy and that because the collision occurred after Gerik had canceled the policy, the policy did not cover Makarka's claim. Makarka appeals.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Because Makarka stands in the shoes of mechanic Chris Callihan, we must interpret the Great American policy to learn whether it covered Callihan for liability due to Makarka's injury. On cross- motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled that it did not. This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, affirming the decision if there are no genuine issues of material fact bearing on the legal questions presented and if the answers to those legal questions require a decision in favor of the moving party. All factual inferences must be drawn in favor of Makarka, the party opposing summary judgment.
When interpreting contract language on appeal, we apply our independe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|