Allen v. Marysville Mutual Ins. Co.
116888
| Kan. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Owners Kenny and Sharon Allen insured a rental home rented by Brian and Lori Reedy; Alejandro Garcia, a fugitive who had shot at officers, ended up inside the Reedy residence during a multi-jurisdictional chase.
- Officers surrounded the house, used loudspeakers to demand surrender, and deployed chemical munitions (tear gas / pepper spray); up to ~15 canisters were fired, many breaking windows and causing substantial interior damage.
- About an hour after deploying gas, officers forced entry, found Garcia hiding under a mattress, and arrested him without further injury. Repair estimates ranged $34k–$36k; policy limit was $32k.
- The Allens submitted an insurance claim; Marysville Mutual denied coverage citing a policy exclusion for "a loss which results from order of civil authority," and the district court granted summary judgment for the insurer.
- On appeal, the court considered whether the damage "resulted from" the search warrant (an order of civil authority) or instead from foreseeable police action after Garcia unlawfully entered and refused to surrender, and whether Garcia entered by vandalism (vandalism is covered).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy exclusion for "a loss which results from order of civil authority" bars coverage | Allens: damage flowed from Garcia's vandalism (breaking in); police response was a foreseeable consequence so vandalism is the efficient proximate cause, making loss covered | Marysville: issuance/execution of a search warrant (a government order) caused the damage; exclusion applies and concurrent-cause clause bars recovery | Exclusion did not apply — no causal link: officers did not need a warrant to enter/arrest/search (consent and arrest authority existed); damage did not "result from" the warrant |
| Whether officers needed a warrant to enter, arrest, or search | Allens: (implicitly) entry was at least partly under warrant authority | Marysville: search warrant validated entry and search | Court: officers had authority to arrest (probable cause) and obtain consent from owners/renters; warrant was precautionary, not the cause of damage |
| Whether concurrent-cause provision defeats coverage if any excluded cause contributed | Allens: provision may be void or inapplicable because exclusion does not apply | Marysville: any excluded cause (warrant) plus other causes bars recovery | Court did not resolve public-policy attack but held exclusion inapplicable, so concurrent-cause rule not reached |
| Whether summary judgment for Allens was appropriate on coverage (entry method factual dispute) | Allens: undisputed evidence shows Garcia broke a window (vandalism) so coverage should be decided for plaintiffs | Marysville: evidence (Garcia’s statement) suggests entry through unlocked door; facts disputed | Court: factual dispute about entry method precludes summary judgment for Allens; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (causation requires actual cause relationship)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (warrantless entry permissible to arrest fleeing felon under exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (co-occupant consent to search binds others)
- Kao v. Markel Ins. Co., 708 F. Supp. 2d 472 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (search-warrant execution held to trigger similar exclusion)
- Alton v. Manufacturers & Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 416 Mass. 611 (search-warrant execution damage excluded under policy)
- Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 298 Kan. 700 (rules on insurance contract interpretation)