 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Soo Line Railroad Co. v. Brown's Crew Car of Wyoming3/11/2003
the insurer had no duty to defend the railroad or to pay the railroad's costs of defense. In a cross-claim against Progressive, Brown's alleged that Progressive was required to defend the Soo Line in the third-party actions and to defend Brown's in the declaratory-judgment action.
Progressive moved for summary judgment against both the Soo Line and Brown's. Ruling that the Soo Line was an additional insured under Progressive's policy and that no exclusion applies, the district court denied the motion as to the Soo Line. As to Brown's contention that coverage was available under the "insured contract" provision of the liability policy, the court ruled that Brown's was collaterally estopped from relitigating a prior court ruling that Brown's indemnification agreement was not an "insured contract." Accordingly, the court granted Progressive's summary-judgment motion against Brown's.
The Soo Line then moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion as to Progressive, holding that the insurer is liable for the expenses the Soo Line incurred in defending the third-party actions and for expenses incurred in the declaratory-judgment action. The court denied the Soo Line's motion as to Brown's.
DECISION
An appeal from summary judgment raises two questions: (1) are there issues of material fact for trial, and (2) did the district court err in its application of the law? State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). The facts of this action are not in dispute. Both Progressive and Brown's dispute the district court's application of the law. We review the district court's interpretation of an insurance policy de novo. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 589 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn. 1999). "The question of whether a legal duty to defend or indemnify arises is a legal question subject to de novo review." Id. The applicability of collateral estoppel is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. In re Trusts Created by Hormel, 504 N.W.2d 505, 509 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993). If collateral estoppel applies, the district court's application of the doctrine is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Saudi Am. Bank v. Azhari, 460 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Minn. App. 1990).
Progressive's Duty to Defend
An insurer has a duty to defend an insured when the contract "arguably" provides that duty. Franklin v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 574 N.W.2d 405, 406-07 (Minn. 1998) (citation omitted). When there is no coverage because of a policy exclusion, the insurer has no duty to defend. Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 293, 104 N.W.2d 19, 24 (1960).
Progressive does not challenge the district court's determination that the Soo Line is an additional insured under the liability policy. Rather, Progressive argues that two exclusions that apply to the Soo Line negate coverage and any duty to defend.
One exclusion in the policy is labeled "Employee Indemnification and Employer's Liability." Under this provision, coverage is excluded for bodily injury to the insured's employee that arises "out of and in the course of employment by the 'insured' * * *." It is undisputed that Geng and Cooper were Soo Line employees and were being transported in the scope and course of their employment when they suffered bodily injuries.
The policy provides an exception to the exclusion for certain employees:
But this exclusion does not apply to "bodily injury " to domestic employees not entitled to workers' compensation benefits or to liability assumed by the "insured" under an "insured contract."
Employee exclusions in liability-insurance policies are ordinarily enforceable. Uti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|