Linda Volk v. Ace American Insurance Company
748 F.3d 827
8th Cir.2014Background
- Johnson, represented by guardian, sought recovery under ACE policy for injuries caused by an assistant while Johnson was under North Country Home Care, Inc. supervision.
- Policy provided North Country with general-liability and professional-liability coverage until June 2006 when North Country ceased operations.
- ACE denied both general and professional coverage; professional coverage denied as claims must arise before policy termination; Johnson waived professional-liability recovery.
- Johnson sued North Country in state court; Miller-Shugart settlement yielded judgment against North Country for approximately $2.696 million.
- Johnson then sued ACE in federal court after removal; district court granted ACE summary judgment based on the patient exclusion in the general-liability provision.
- This court affirms the grant of summary judgment, interpreting the term “patient” as unambiguous and applying contract-interpretation principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Johnson a “patient” under the policy’s general-liability exclusion? | Johnson contends he was not a patient since the assistant was unlicensed and did not provide medical care. | ACE argues the term “patient” is unambiguous and applies to those North Country serves. | Yes; “patient” is unambiguous and includes Johnson as the recipient of North Country’s personal-care services. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gammon v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 454 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (read contract terms consistently with contract purpose)
- Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 205 N.W.2d 121 (Minn. 1973) (read words in light of overall contract purpose)
- General Cas. Co. of Wis. v. Wozniak Travel, Inc., 762 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 2009) (undefined terms defined by dictionary in plain meaning context)
- American Family Ins. Co. v. Walker, 628 N.W.2d 605 (Minn. 2001) (interpretation of insurance policy terms; ambiguity standard)
- Thommes v. Milwaukee Ins. Co., 641 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. 2002) (ambiguous terms construed against the drafter and in favor of insured)