Youngman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Youngman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America

DecidedSeptember 17, 2021

Docket123728

StatusUnpublished

This text of Youngman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (Youngman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Youngman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, (kanctapp 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No.123,728

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

DANA YOUNGMAN, et al., Appellants,

v.

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Thomas District Court; KEVIN BERENS, judge. Opinion filed September 17, 2021. Affirmed.

Jon R. Clayton, of Overland Park, for appellant.

Bruce A Moothart, of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellee.

Before ATCHESON P.J., BRUNS and ISHERWOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM: On cross motions for summary judgment, the Thomas County District Court held that the policy Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of America issued the plaintiffs for a house they owned and rented out did not cover an act of vandalism because the property had been vacant for an extended period of time. The parties agree the material facts are undisputed and the coverage issue turns on several interlocking provisions of the policy. We apply the same standards as the district court in reviewing summary judgment and owe no particular deference to the district court's analysis of the policy language. See Hernandez v. Pistotnik, 58 Kan. App. 2d 501, 505, 472 P.3d 110 (2020).

1 Having reviewed the record, the district court's written order granting summary judgment to Safeco, and the parties' appellate briefs, we find no substantive error in the order and conclude it adequately sets forth the controlling facts and legal principles explaining the decision. We, therefore, affirm under Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(5) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No.123,728

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

DANA YOUNGMAN, et al., Appellants,

v.

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Thomas District Court; KEVIN BERENS, judge. Opinion filed September 17, 2021. Affirmed.

Jon R. Clayton, of Overland Park, for appellant.

Bruce A Moothart, of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellee.

Before ATCHESON P.J., BRUNS and ISHERWOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM: On cross motions for summary judgment, the Thomas County District Court held that the policy Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of America issued the plaintiffs for a house they owned and rented out did not cover an act of vandalism because the property had been vacant for an extended period of time. The parties agree the material facts are undisputed and the coverage issue turns on several interlocking provisions of the policy. We apply the same standards as the district court in reviewing summary judgment and owe no particular deference to the district court's analysis of the policy language. See Hernandez v. Pistotnik, 58 Kan. App. 2d 501, 505, 472 P.3d 110 (2020).

1 Having reviewed the record, the district court's written order granting summary judgment to Safeco, and the parties' appellate briefs, we find no substantive error in the order and conclude it adequately sets forth the controlling facts and legal principles explaining the decision. We, therefore, affirm under Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(5) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Youngman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youngman-v-safeco-ins-co-of-america-kanctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack