Fisher v. Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
162 Idaho 149
Idaho2017Background
- Fisher owned a 1965 single-story house insured by Garrison for policy periods March 2012–March 2014 at the described location 2510 N. 34th St., Boise.
- Fisher entered a January 23, 2012 purchase agreement and concurrent rental agreement with buyer/tenant Reynoso who leased the property and indicated intent to make improvements and possibly resell.
- Within two months of occupancy Reynoso demolished Fisher’s house down to the foundation and later did some rough framing, then abandoned the project; Fisher claimed the loss under her homeowner policy and Garrison denied coverage.
- Fisher sued seeking policy recovery; district court granted Garrison summary judgment based on the policy exclusion for faulty, inadequate, or defective work and denied Fisher’s partial summary judgment on the intentional-loss exclusion.
- On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether the faulty/inadequate/defective work exclusion barred coverage for the physical destruction of Fisher’s dwelling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the faulty/inadequate/defective-work exclusion bars coverage for the demolition/destruction of the insured dwelling | Fisher: loss was physical destruction of her insured dwelling and not caused by "workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, or remodeling" as those terms contemplate building defects or poor workmanship | Garrison: loss resulted from Reynoso’s construction/renovation/remodeling/workmanship so exclusion applies | Court: exclusion does not apply; demolition is destruction, not the types of faulty work covered by the exclusion |
| Whether the insured loss could be characterized as failure to complete new construction (i.e., loss from failure to build) | Fisher: policy covers loss to the existing dwelling (her house), not a hypothetical future house | Garrison: loss stems from activities related to construction/renovation of the property | Court: loss is to the existing dwelling (the 1965 house) when demolished; no coverage issue for failure to construct a future house |
| Whether the intentional-loss exclusion was properly resolved on summary judgment | Fisher: intentional-loss exclusion should not apply because she did not direct or intend the demolition | Garrison: argued intentional-loss exclusion might apply | Court: declined to resolve on appeal because district court found a genuine factual issue; denial of summary judgment is interlocutory and not reviewable here |
| Standard of review for summary judgment and interpretation of exclusions | Fisher: N/A (relies on plain-meaning construction favoring insured) | Garrison: N/A | Court: applied summary judgment standards, construed policy language as a whole, gave nontechnical words lay meaning, and strictly construed exclusions in favor of insured |
Key Cases Cited
- Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45, 44 P.3d 1100 (summary judgment standard and construing facts for nonmoving party)
- Cascade Auto Glass, Inc. v. Idaho Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 141 Idaho 660, 115 P.3d 751 (policy construed as whole; plain meaning of words)
- Howard v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co., 137 Idaho 214, 46 P.3d 510 (common words given lay meaning)
- Moss v. Mid-Am. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 103 Idaho 298, 647 P.2d 754 (exclusions strictly construed in favor of insured)
- Dave’s Inc. v. Linford, 153 Idaho 744, 291 P.3d 427 (policy provisions read in context)
- Dominguez ex rel. Hamp v. Evergreen Res., Inc., 142 Idaho 7, 121 P.3d 938 (interlocutory denial of summary judgment not reviewable on appeal)