 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gainsco Insurance Co. v. Amoco Production Co.8/19/2002
co's recovery against Andrews could not, as a matter of law, exceed the limits of Andrews' policy with Gainsco?
3. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it held that Gainsco's denial of coverage to Andrews amounted to first-party bad faith, because the total pollution exclusion made the question of coverage fairly debatable?
4. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it held that Gainsco's denial of coverage to Andrews amounted to first-party bad faith, because the insured contract exclusion made the question of coverage fairly debatable?
5. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it held that Amoco's indemnity claim was covered under Andrews' policy with Gainsco, when the total pollution exclusion showed no coverage existed?
6. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it held that Amoco's indemnity claim was covered under Andrews' policy with Gainsco, when the insured contract exclusion showed no coverage existed?
7. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it ignored Gainsco's argument that it was prejudiced when Amoco and Andrews failed to notify it that one term of the settlement agreement was Andrews' dismissal of its third-party complaint against Kobbe?
8. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it held that the stipulated judgment amount of $795,901.00 was a reasonable amount?
9. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it held that the total stipulated judgment amount was enforceable by Amoco against Gainsco?
10. Does the law of the case doctrine prevent Gainsco from raising the argument in this appeal that the express $300,000.00 limit of Andrews' liability contained in the Contract is a complete defense to any bad faith claim asserted by Amoco?
11. Does the indemnity provision of the Contract between Amoco and Andrews violate Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-131 (LexisNexis 2001)?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Procedurally, we are reviewing a summary judgment granted in a declaratory judgment action. Declaratory judgments are sought under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-37-101 through 1-37-115 (LexisNexis 2001) and summary judgments are governed by W.R.C.P. 56. Declaratory judgment actions are commonly used to contest insurance policy coverage issues. See, e.g., Pribble v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 933 P.2d 1108 (Wyo. 1997); Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America, 864 P.2d 1018 (Wyo. 1993); and Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hallmark Ins. Co., 561 P.2d 706 (Wyo. 1977).
When this court reviews a grant of summary judgment entered in response to a petition for declaratory judgment, we invoke our usual standard for review of summary judgments. . . . The summary judgment can be sustained only when no genuine issues of material fact are present and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . In this instance, there is no contention that any genuine issue of material fact exists, and our concern is strictly with the application of the law. . . . We accord no deference to the district court on issues of law and may affirm the summary judgment on any legal grounds appearing in the record. Wyoming Community College Com'n v. Casper Community College Dist., 2001 WY 86, 11, 31 P.3d 1242, 1247 (Wyo. 2001).
Our established rules of contract interpretation apply to insurance policies. . . . Interpretation is the process of ascertaining the meaning of the words used to express the intent of the parties. . . . The intent of the parties is determined by considering the instrument which memorializes the agreement of the parties as a whole. . . . This court
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|