Lewis Holding Co. v. Forsberg Engerman Co., 318 P.3d 822

Lewis Holding, a trucking company, owned side-dump trailers that were damaged in two incidents (2010 and 2011).
Lexington Insurance issued the policy; Forsberg Engerman acted as the broker/agent; NTA adjusted claims for Lexington.
Lexington paid the 2010 claim because that trailer experienced an "upset" (wheels off the ground), a covered peril.
The 2011 incident involved trailer damage while wheels remained on the ground; Lexington denied coverage after an adjuster and expert concluded the damage resulted from mechanical failure/improper welding—an exclusion under the policy.
Lewis sued Lexington, NTA, and Forsberg alleging estoppel and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether insurer is estopped from denying 2011 claim because it paid the 2010 claim	Lexington's prior payment and failure to warn created equitable estoppel extending coverage to the 2011 loss	Policy expressly covers "upset" but excludes mechanical failure/wear and tear; estoppel cannot expand coverage beyond policy terms	Court: No estoppel; cannot use estoppel to extend coverage excluded by policy
Whether defendants breached covenant of good faith and fair dealing by denying the 2011 claim	Denial lacked a reasonable basis and was in bad faith	Denial was supported by adjuster and expert findings that damage was caused by mechanical failure/excluded risk	Court: No bad faith; denial had a reasonable basis and no knowledge/reckless disregard of lack of basis
Whether broker Forsberg is liable under the insurance contract	Forsberg dealt directly with insured and received payments, so should be liable	Forsberg was merely agent/broker and not a party to the insurance contract; no assumption of liability	Court: Forsberg not liable as it was not a party and made no assumption of contractual liability

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Petsch, 261 F.2d 331 (10th Cir. 1958) (estoppel cannot be used to expand policy coverage)
Sowers v. Iowa Home Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 359 P.2d 488 (Wyo. 1961) (insurer/agent acts cannot extend coverage excluded by policy)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Albany County Sch. Dist., 768 P.2d 1255 (Wyo. 1989) (discussing limits of estoppel/waiver to alter policy coverage)
Matlock v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 44 P.3d 73 (Wyo. 2002) (elements required to prove insurer bad-faith claim)
Hogan v. Postin, 695 P.2d 1042 (Wyo. 1985) (general principle that an agent is not personally liable absent an agreement to assume liability)