 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of Lincoln4/8/2005
rt views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Woodhouse Ford v. Laflan, supra.
The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach its own conclusions independently of the determination made by the trial court. Chief Indus. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 268 Neb. 450, 683 N.W.2d 374 (2004); Hall v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 265 Neb. 716, 658 N.W.2d 711 (2003).
Under the public entity insurance policy provided by Genesis, Genesis agreed to indemnify the city for losses the city was obligated to pay as a result of bodily injury , personal injury , advertising injury, or property damage covered by the policy. The coverage afforded by the Genesis policy was limited by endorsement No. 11, which states that " overage provided by this policy within the automobile hazard, including no-fault (personal injury protection), uninsured motorists and underinsured motorists coverages, is limited to only those autos owned, operated, used, maintained or repaired, including loading or unloading, by StarTran." Automobile hazard is defined in section IV of the Genesis policy as "liability arising out of the ownership, use (including maintenance or repair), loading or unloading of any auto."
We conclude that the city's liability arose out of the use of the city's police vehicle. Because it is clear from endorsement No. 11 that the Genesis insurance policy does not afford coverage for liability arising out of the use of city police vehicles, we conclude that the district court properly granted Genesis' motion for summary judgment.
Allied's Motion for Summary Judgment
Allied also contends on appeal as its second assignment of error that the district court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. In its August 14, 2003, order, the district court made an express finding that judgment was final as to the claims of Allied and the city against Genesis. The court did not make an express determination that judgment was final as to any claims against Allied. Consequently, there is no final order under ยง 25-1315, and as a result, we do not have jurisdiction to address the denial of Allied's motion for summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Hendry, C.J., not participating.
|