Great West Casualty Co. v. Robbins
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15060
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robbins’s estate sued in Indiana for negligence; Great West sought declaratory relief to avoid indemnifying Hoker/Phillips; Phillips/Hoker insured by Northland, not Great West; Lakeville leased the trailer from Wren; Great West insured the trailer and added Lakeville/Wren as insureds; endorsement to Great West policy added two exclusions for trailer interchange and for users under trailer interchange agreements; district court granted Great West summary judgment; on appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviews de novo and applies Minnesota contract law interpreted with layperson perspective.
- Great West’s policy excludes Hoker/Phillips under the September 2010 endorsement when the trailer is used in a business other than Lakeville’s; Robbins argues ambiguity and alternative reading that would include Hoker/Phillips.
- The trailer involved may have been used under a Trailer Interchange Agreement, but evidence is insufficient to prove a written agreement; Robbins also argues Hoker/Phillips rented/borrowed the trailer and used it in Lakeville’s business, but record shows use in Hoker’s business.
- The court applies Minnesota law, rejects Robbins’s Wisconsin permissive-use theory under Wis. Stat. §632.32 and §194.41, and holds the endorsement unambiguously excludes Hoker/Phillips; the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Great West is affirmed.
- The issues include interpretation of the endorsement, sufficiency of the written trailer interchange evidence, and the application of Wisconsin-permissive-use statutes to a Minnesota-based policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the endorsement creates ambiguity | Robbins argues ambiguity favors coverage | Great West argues no ambiguity and interpretations align | No ambiguity; endorsement unambiguously excludes Hoker/Phillips |
| Whether the trailer interchange agreement excludes coverage | Robbins argues a written agreement shows coverage applies | Great West argues no proven written agreement; evidence insufficient | Not proven that trailer was subject to a written interchange agreement |
| Whether the trailer was used in Lakeville’s business | Robbins contends simultaneous use in Lakeville’s business | Great West contends use was in Hoker’s business only | Evidence shows trailer used in Hoker’s business, not Lakeville’s; exclusion applies |
| Whether Wisconsin law requires permissive-user coverage | Robbins invokes Wis. §632.32/§194.41 coverage for permissive users | Great West argues Wisconsin rules do not control; policy issued in Minnesota | Wisconsin permissive-user statutes do not apply; Minnesota law governs; exclusions stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. Reg-Ellen Mach. Tool Corp., 423 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment standards; de novo review)
- Clarendon Nat Ins. Co. v. Medina, 645 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2011) (choice-of-law and contract interpretation guidance)
- Lobeck v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 582 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1998) (ambiguity in insurance policy terms; general contract principles)
- Lott v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 541 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. 1995) (ambiguity resolved in favor of coverage when reasonable)
- Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 1997) (interpretation of contract language as a whole)
- Wanzek Constr., Inc. v. Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau, 679 N.W.2d 322 (Minn. 2004) (read policy language from layperson perspective)
- Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1989) (plain and ordinary meaning; no reading ambiguity into language)
- Jenoff, Inc. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 558 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 1997) (ambiguity rule in Minnesota insurance contracts)
- Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 656, 355 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 1984) (ambiguous language interpreted in insured’s favor)
- Red & White Airway Cab Co. v. Transit Cas. Co., 305 Minn. 353, 234 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1975) (policy language construed against insurer when ambiguous)
- Danielson v. Gasper, 240 Wis.2d 633, 623 N.W.2d 182 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (delivered policy; out-of-state certificate not same as delivered policy)
- Sisson v. Hansen Storage Company, 313 Wis.2d 411, 756 N.W.2d 667 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008) (unified carrier registration system exemption)
- Mullenberg v. Kilgust Mechanical, Inc., 235 Wis.2d 770, 612 N.W.2d 327 (Wis. 2000) (interpretation of endorsements and state-law conformity)
- Amery Motor Co. v. Corey, 46 Wis.2d 291, 174 N.W.2d 540 (Wis. 1970) (omnibus/statutory conformity principles)