Kalee Deatley v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.
701 F.3d 836
8th Cir.2012Background
- DeAtley, a high school student and wrestler, was injured in February 2009 while at the Missouri State Wrestling Tournament in Columbia, after traveling with his team but as a non-qualifier.
- Mutual issued a policy to MSHSAA covering participating member high schools, including Odessa, with excess coverage for incurred losses.
- Policy defines Insured Person and Eligibility, tying coverage to participation in interscholastic competition and activities associated with a covered event.
- DeAtley sued Mutual for breach of contract after its denial of his claim and sought vexatious-relief damages; both sides moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted Mutual's summary judgment, holding the policy unambiguous and DeAtley not meeting the Insured Person definition because he was not participating in interscholastic competition; DeAtley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DeAtley qualifies as an Insured Person under the policy | DeAtley argues broad reading of Eligibility/Insured Person includes non-participants | Participation is required by the policy's terms | DeAtley not an Insured Person |
| Whether the policy language is ambiguous and should be construed in the insured's favor | Ambiguity should be resolved in favor of coverage | Arguments waived; policy language unambiguous | Waiver applies; language unambiguous; DeAtley not covered |
| Whether DeAtley participated in the wrestling tournament as a participant/athlete | Attendance as part of the team constitutes participation | He was a spectator, not a contestant or athlete | He was a spectator, not participating as an athlete |
Key Cases Cited
- Todd v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. 2007) (ambiguities resolved in insured's favor; enforce unambiguous terms)
- Tr. of Electricians’ Salary Deferral Plan v. Wright, 688 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2012) (arguments raised for first time on appeal not considered)
- Corn Plus Coop. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 516 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 2008) (failure to raise ambiguity below results in waiver)