Markel International Ins. Co. v. Jason Ezra Erekson
279 P.3d 93
Idaho2012Background
- Elk Country Sports sold a used Magnum Research BFR revolver with three boxes of handloaded ammunition from the prior owner.
- Erekson and his son used the revolver at a city range; a loaded cartridge detonated and caused severe injuries to Erekson.
- The reloaded ammunition allegedly used rifle primers in pistol-case heads, causing a protruding primer and rearward cartridge failure.
- The policy issued to Elk Country Sports included Commercial General Liability and Commercial Property coverages, with endorsements: Designated Premises or Project Endorsement, Firearms Exclusion, and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Endorsement.
- The district court ruled the Designated Premises/Project Endorsement excluded coverage; it later held the Products-Completed Operations Hazard Endorsement did not exclude; the estate appealed and Markel cross-appealed.
- The court ultimately affirmed on the alternate ground that the Products-Completed Operations Hazard Endorsement excludes coverage; Firearms Exclusion not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Designated Premises or Project Endorsement exclude coverage? | Erekson argues the endorsement covers the business, not premises. | Markel contends the endorsement is disjunctive and can exclude in project terms. | No; endorsement is disjunctive and does not exclude here. |
| Does the Products-Completed Operations Hazard Endorsement exclude coverage? | Erekson alleged injuries from products sold by Elk Country Sports. | Endorsement excludes injuries arising away from premises from the insured’s products. | Yes; endorsement excludes coverage. |
| Is it necessary to address the Firearms Exclusion after ruling on the two endorsements? | Not explicitly stated. | Not necessary if covered by other endorsements. | Not reached; not necessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frasier v. Frasier, 87 Idaho 510 (Idaho 1964) (use of disjunctive in policy language)
- Chancier v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 109 Idaho 841 (Idaho 1985) (excluded coverage for negligent failure to warn; definitions matter)
- Parma Seed, Inc. v. General Ins. Co. of America, 94 Idaho 658 (Idaho 1972) (products/completed operations exclusion applies to failure to discover defects)
- Continental Cas. Co. v. Brady, 127 Idaho 830 (Idaho 1995) (claims for return of fees excluded regardless of theory of recovery)