Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance v. Roger Schwieger
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14515
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Voss owns a cattle-feeding operation and has a Grinnell FARM-GUARD liability policy with a Custom Feeding Endorsement.
- Schwieger’s cattle, under Voss’s care, suffered high mortality due to Rumensin exposure while in care at Voss’s facility.
- Schwieger sued Voss in Minnesota state court for damages related to death and growth delays of cattle.
- Voss’s policy includes Exclusion 5 (care, custody or control) and Exclusion 2 (no performance guarantees), with the Custom Feeding Endorsement modifying Exclusion 6.a. and otherwise leaving policy terms intact.
- Grinnell denied coverage, arguing Exclusion 5 barred Schwieger’s claims despite the endorsement; Schwieger and Voss sued for declaratory judgment in federal court; district court granted summary judgment for Schwieger/Voss based on the endorsement.
- The Court disagrees with the district court, cites Gaza Beef as persuasive Minnesota law, and holds Exclusion 5 precludes coverage despite the endorsement; case is reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in Grinnell’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Custom Feeding Endorsement supersede Exclusion 5? | Schwieger argues endorsement overrides 5. | Grinnell argues endorsement only exempts 6.a., not 5. | No; endorsement does not override Exclusion 5. |
| Is Gaza Beef controlling Minnesota law on endorsements vs. exclusions? | Gaza Beef supports coverage under endorsement. | Gaza Beef rejects broadening coverage; endorsement limited to 6.a. | Gaza Beef persuasive; endorsement does not restore coverage under Exclusion 5. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mich. Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. DG & G Co., 569 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2009) (endorsed approach to selling/coverages and exclusions under GL policy)
- In re SRC Holding Corp., 545 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2008) (endorsements must be read in context with rest of policy)
- Ferguson v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 512 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1994) (endorsement limiting coverage does not nullify broad exclusions)
- Bobich v. Oja, 104 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1960) (ambiguity and contract interpretation in insurance policy terms)
- Warren v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 418 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (ambiguity resolved in insured’s reasonable expectations)
- Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis. v. Outdoor Concepts, 667 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (policy ambiguity and interpretation principles)
- St. Paul Sch. Dist. v. Columbia Transit Corp., 321 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. 1982) (general contract-law framework for policy interpretation)
- Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 457 N.W.2d 175 (Minn. 1990) (standard for interpreting insurance contract terms)