 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davis County v. Jensen12/26/2003
(For Official Publication)
Davis County appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 1998, James Jensen led police on a high-speed automobile chase. During the pursuit, Jensen, driving southbound on Interstate 15, attempted to cross the median into oncoming northbound traffic. Worried for the safety of other drivers, Sergeant Gleave of the Davis County Sheriff's Office maneuvered his cruiser along the driver-side of Jensen's vehicle, effectively blocking Jensen's intended path into the opposing traffic flow. Unfazed, Jensen continued toward the median until his vehicle impacted the passenger side of Sergeant Gleave's cruiser. Jensen's attempts to push the heavier cruiser out of the way proved unsuccessful, and Sergeant Gleave began pushing Jensen's car toward the right shoulder of the southbound lane. At this point, Jensen abruptly disengaged. The sudden lack of resistance caused Sergeant Gleave to lose control of his cruiser and collide with a semitrailer truck. The cruiser was deemed a total loss by insurance adjusters. Jensen later pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and failure to stop at the command of a police officer.
At the time of the incident, Jensen was covered as a permissive user under an automobile insurance policy (the Policy) with Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company (Progressive). Davis County (the County) filed a claim with Progressive for damages to the police cruiser. Progressive determined that Jensen's conduct was intentional, not accidental, and therefore was not covered under the Policy.
After Progressive denied the claim, the County filed a negligence suit against Jensen and Progressive seeking to recover damages. Because Progressive believed Jensen's intentional criminal conduct excluded him from coverage under the Policy, Progressive did not provide a defense for Jensen. When Jensen failed to provide his own defense, the trial court entered a default judgment against him in the amount of $17,209.88.
Thereafter, both Progressive and the County filed motions for summary judgment. Progressive argued it was entitled to summary judgment because the County had no standing to sue Progressive and because Jensen's intentional conduct was outside the scope of coverage, relieving Progressive of any duty to indemnify or defend Jensen. The County argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the default judgment against Jensen conclusively established the factual allegations of negligence in the complaint, leaving Jensen's conduct squarely within the scope of coverage. Hence, the County argued that both the fact and the amount of Progressive's liability were conclusively established. The trial court denied the County's motion for summary judgment and granted Progressive's motion for summary judgment after concluding that Progressive had no duty to indemnify or defend because Jensen's conduct placed him outside the scope of coverage under the Policy. The County appeals.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The County argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Progressive and denying the County judgment as a matter of law. "Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, , 56 P.3d 524 (quotations and citations omitted). "When reviewing the trial court's order granting [Progressive's] summary judgment motion, we view the facts and reasonable factual inferenc
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|