County of Kaua v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.5/27/1999
review circuit court's award of summary judgment de novo under the same standard applied by the circuit court. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 104, 839 P.2d 10, 22, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 843 P.2d 144 (1992) (citation omitted). As we have often articulated:
" ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 56(c) (1990). "A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties." Hulsman v. Hemmeter Dev. Corp., 65 Haw. 58, 61, 647 P.2d 713, 716 (1982) (citations omitted). Konno v. County of Hawaii, 85 Hawaii 61, 70, 937 P.2d 397, 406 (1997) (quoting Dunlea v. Dappen, 83 Hawaii 28, 36, 924 P.2d 196, 204 (1996)) (brackets in original). "The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." State ex rel. Bronster v. Yoshina, 84 Hawaii 179, 186, 932 P.2d 316, 323 (1997) (citing Maguire v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 79 Hawaii 110, 112, 899 P.2d 393, 395 (1995)). In other words, "we must view all of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to [the party opposing the motion]." Maguire, 79 Hawaii at 112, 899 P.2d at 395 (citation omitted). State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Murata, 88 Hawaii 284, 287-88, 965 P.2d 1284, 1287-88 (1998) (quoting Estate of Doe v. Paul Revere Ins. Group, 86 Hawaii 262, 269-270, 948 P.2d 1103, 1110-1111 (1997) (quoting Morinoue v. Roy, 86 Hawaii 76, 80, 947 P.2d 944, 948 (1997))) (brackets in original).
III. DISCUSSION
The ICA's majority opinion, relying solely on United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 437 N.E.2d 663 (Ill. Ct. App. 1982) (USF&G;I), and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 504 N.E.2d 123 (Ill. Ct. App. 1987), appeal denied, 511 N.E.2d 438 (Ill. 1989) (USF&G;II), held that Scottsdale owed a duty to defend based on the County's alleged negligent supervision of Officer Abadilla. ICA's majority opinion at 14-17. The underlying lawsuit at issue in both of the USF&G;decisions arose out of a child's fall from an automobile while she was being driven from a day care center to a dance class by an employee of the day care center. USF&G;I, 437 N.E.2d at 664. Neither decision involved, as does the present case, an allegation that, because of an employer's inadequate supervision of its employee, the employee actionably caused damage to someone else. Instead, the USF&G;decisions involved allegations that the defendant employee had been negligent in failing to supervise the injured party in order to prevent that party from being injured. Accordingly, the holdings of USF&G;I and USF&G;II -- that the defendant employee's failure to supervise was a separate, concurrent cause of the accidents -- are inapposite.
Much closer to the facts at hand are this court's opinions in Fortune v. Wong, 68 Haw. 1, 702 P.2d 299 (1985), and Hawaiian Insurance & Guaranty Company v. Chief Clerk of the First Circuit Court, 68 Haw. 336, 713 P.2d 427 (1986) (HIG). In Fortune, the plaintiff alleged that his minor son had been injured when he was struck by a motor vehicle driven by another minor, whose parents, the defendants, were holders of a homeowner's insurance policy and alleged to be liable pursuant
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|