Park Place Apartments, L.L.C. v. Farmers Union Mutual Insurance
2010 MT 270
| Mont. | 2010Background
- PPA bought a 24-unit Whitefish complex; Hileman (agent) and Wilhelm applied for FUMIC coverage stating broad protection for the property; carport not separately listed but believed covered.
- Policy renewed annually; 2005 endorsement BOP-54 stated only listed buildings on Declarations are covered; no notice disclosed to Hileman or Sparby.
- In 2008 a snow event damaged the carport; FUMIC initially advised coverage, then denied coverage citing BOP-54 exclusion since 2005.
- Hileman requested explanation/payment; no records show explicit notice of BOP-54 to Hileman or Sparby; dispute whether such notice was provided.
- District Court granted summary judgment for FUMIC/Wilhelm, held carport not listed = not covered; PPA cross-moved for coverage and potential negligence against Wilhelm.
- This Court reversed, concluding ambiguity exists and carport may be covered; remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of PPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether carport is covered under the policy | carport included as part of premises insured by the Declaration | carport not listed; not covered; BOP-54 excludes unlisted buildings | Ambiguity; carport coverage favored; reversal in PPA's favor |
| Effect of BOP-54 on coverage | BOP-54 did not negate preexisting coverage of the carport | BOP-54 limited coverage to buildings with listed limits; carport excluded | Court treated endorsement language as part of the contract but found ambiguity requiring resolution in PPA's favor |
| Duty of Wilhelm to procure coverage for the carport | Wilhelm intended to insure the entire property; failure to specifically request carport coverage was negligent | no express request for carport coverage; no duty to insure unrequested item | Court did not reach Wilhelm's negligence due to resolution of coverage ambiguity in PPA's favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 315 Mont. 281 (2003 MT 102) (ambiguity resolved in insured's favor when reasonable doubt exists)
- Cusenbary v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 37 P.3d 67 (2001 MT 261) (insurance contract interpretation; reasonable consumer perspective)
- Swank Enters., Inc. v. All Purpose Servs., Ltd., 154 P.3d 52 (2007 MT 57) (exclusions construed narrowly against policy's protective purpose)
- Milltown Addition Homeowner's Ass'n v. Geery, 15 P.3d 458 (2000 MT 341) (interpretation to give effect to every part of contract)
- State v. Butte-Silver Bow County, 220 P.3d 1115 (2009 MT 414) (standard for reviewing summary-judgment rulings)