Darrah v. Milbank Mutual Ins. Co.

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: February 3, 1983
• Docket: 82-404
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 82-404

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

KATHERINE J . DARRAH,

Plaintiff and A p p e l l a n t ,

VS.

MILBANK MUTUAL INSURANCE C O . , a foreign corporation,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Missoula Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant:

T i p p , Hoven, S k j e l s e t & F r i z z e l l , M i s s o u l a , Montana Douglas G . S k j e l s e t , M i s s o u l a , Montana

For Respondent:

G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn & R o b i n s o n , M i s s o u l a , Montana P a u l C . Meismer, M i s s o u l a , Montana

Submitted on b r i e f s : January 7, 1983

Decided: February 3 , 1983

- ---4

Clerk M r . J u s t i c e L . C. G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .

T h i s a p p e a l stems from a summary j u d g m e n t , i n f a v o r of the r e s p o n d e n t M i l b a n k M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e Company, d e n y i n g a p p e l l a n t a

$10,000 accidental death benefit. The District C o u r t of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, found that the appellant had not purchased the accidental death benefit coverage. A p p e l l a n t is t h e widow o f R i c h a r d D . D a r r a h who w a s k i l l e d i n

a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t on F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 7 9 . A t t h e t i m e of that a c c i d e n t t h e d e c e d e n t was t h e h o l d e r o f a n a u t o m o b i l e insurance p o l i c y i s s u e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t . P a r t I11 o f d e c e d e n t ' s p o l i c y p r o v i d e s f o r a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 a c c i d e n - tal death benefit. The r e s p o n d e n t r e f u s e d to pay o n t h e g r o u n d s

t h a t t h i s was a d d i t i o n a l c o v e r a g e and w a s n o t p a i d f o r . However, i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p o s i t i o n t a k e n by t h e company t h e r e is a n a f f i d a v i t i n t h e r e c o r d by Mrs. D a r r a h s t a t i n g t h a t t h e i n s u r a n c e a g e n t who s o l d them t h e p o l i c y t o l d t h e D a r r a h s t h a t t h e y would

be covered by t h e $10,000 a c c i d e n t a l d e a t h b e n e f i t . P a r t I o f the d e c e d e n t ' s p o l i c y also c o n t a i n s a d e a t h b e n e f i t

o f $ 1 , 0 0 0 , which t h e r e s p o n d e n t a d m i t s l i a b i l i t y o n . Several issues are raised on appeal by the parties: 1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary

judgment for the respondent in light of the evidence in the

record ? 2. Whether the District Court erred by granting summary judgment thereby revising or disregarding the written policy without f r a u d or m u t u a l m i s t a k e b e i n g shown and w i t h o u t d e t e r - m i n i n g i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s ? 3. Whether i t was e r r o r to g r a n t summary j u d g m e n t because t h e i n s u r a n c e company is e s t o p p e d from d e n y i n g t h e p o l i c y a f f o r d s

t h e d e a t h and d i s a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e when t h e i n s u r e d was h o n e s t l y

l e d t o b e l i e v e t h a t s a i d c o v e r a g e was a f f o r d e d ? I n cases i n v o l v i n g summary j u d g m e n t t h e p r e - t r i a l record must b e l o o k e d a t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e a n y g e n u i n e i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t , 5 6 ( c ) M.R.Civ.P., Flemmer v . Ming ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 6 2 1 P.2d

1 0 3 5 , 37 S t . R e p . 1916, because summary j u d g m e n t is o n l y p r o p e r u n d e r R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. , where t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s no s u c h

i s s u e s e x i s t and t h e moving p a r t y is e n t i t l e d to judgment as a m a t t e r of l a w . R e a v e s v. Reinbold ( 1 9 8 0 ) r 6 1 5 P.2d 8 9 6 , 8 9 8 , 37

St.Rep. 1500, ( a n d cases c i t e d t h e r e i n ) . A s t h e purpose of the

p r o c e e d i n g is t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e a n y m a t e r i a l i s s u e s

of f a c t involved, i t s h o u l d be remembered t h a t t h e f o r m a l i s s u e s

p r e s e n t e d b y t h e p l e a d i n g s are n o t c o n t r o l l i n g . Byrd v. Bennett

( 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 3 1 P.2d 6 9 5 , 38 S t . R e p . 1083.

The moving p a r t y i n a summary j u d g m e n t a c t i o n h a s t h e b u r d e n

o f s h o w i n g t h e c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e of m a t e r i a l i s s u e s of f a c t . Byrd

v. Bennett ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 3 1 P.2d a t 696; Cereck v. Albertson's Inc.

(1981) 637 P.2d 509, 511, 38 St.Rep. 1986, (and cases cited

therein); Rumph v . Dale E d w a r d s , Inc. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 6 0 0 P.2d 1 6 3 , 36

St.Rep. 1022.

I n t h e case a t h a n d , M i l b a n k M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e Company was t h e

moving party. They have not met their burden of showing a

complete absence of material i s s u e s of fact. T h i s is e v i d e n c e d

by t h e p r e - t r i a l record. The p o l i c y i t s e l f is n o t c l e a r on t h e

q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e d e a t h b e n e f i t i n P a r t I11 i s s u p p l e m e n t a l

coverage for which an additional premium must be paid.

The premium notices in the record are a l s o u n c l e a r as to e x a c t l y what the c o v e r a g e s are. This is d u e t o t h e fact that

these notices are p r i n t e d in such a fashion that the insured

would h a v e t o h a v e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e s y s t e m o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s used

by the company t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t t y p e of coverage they had by

looking a t the notices. N o where i n t h i s p r e - t r i a l record can we

find t h a t the i n s u r e d w a s made aware of what t h e a b b r e v i a t i o n s

u s e d on t h e premium n o t i c e s m e a n t , n o r a r e t h e y p l a i n i n and o f

themselves.

The company h a s a l s o i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e r e c o r d a c o p y of a document c a l l e d t h e "Home O f f i c e D a i l y R e p o r t , " and claims t h a t

i t c l a r i f i e s t h e c o v e r a g e p r o v i d e d to t h e a p p e l l a n t and h e r l a t e husband. However, t h e y f a i l t o show t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f o r h e r husband ever had any contact with or were aware of this

document's contents. Further, plaintiff, in her answers to defendant I s request f o r a d m i s s i o n number t w o and interrogatory number t w o , s t a t e s t h a t s h e h a s n e v e r had a n y c o n t a c t w i t h the "Home O f f i c e D a i l y R e p o r t . " Finally, it s h o u l d be noted t h a t a t h i r d d o c u m e n t o n which

the respondent relies in t h i s case, to prove l a c k of material factual issues concerning what coverage was afforded to the Darrahs, is the "Declarations Page" of the insurance policy. However, t h i s document is a b s e n t from t h e record and therefore

c a n n o t be p a r t o f t h e b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g o r o u r u p h o l d i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t , a l t h o u g h i f i t had b e e n p r e -

sent, it may h a v e b e e n s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t t h e g r a n t i n g o f the

summary j udgment . Based on the above facts and circumstances, there remain

m a t e r i a l i s s u e s of f a c t t o be d e c i d e d i n t h i s c a s e and t h e r e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was i n e r r o r i n g r a n t i n g summary j u d g m e n t . As

t h i s h o l d i n g is d i s p o s i t i v e o f t h i s case, w e need n o t a d d r e s s t h e

o t h e r i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s a t t h i s t i m e . The summary j u d g m e n t is v a c a t e d and t h e c a s e h s remanded f o r ,/

f u r t h e r proceedings .

We concur: