382 P.3d 1058
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Annalee and Troy Poulsen bought a homeowner’s policy from Farmers; the policy generally excluded water intrusion but contained a Limited Water Coverage (LWC) provision that insured water entering through an opening in the roof only if that opening was first caused by certain perils, including windstorm.
- The LWC provision expressly stated a roof does not include any temporary roof, tarp, sheeting, or other temporary covering (the Temporary-Roof Exception).
- While replacing shingles, the Poulsens had removed old shingles and felt underlayment, leaving plywood deck, newly installed ice-and-water shield (IWS), and underlayment in place but no shingles when a sudden wind-and-rain storm ripped the underlayment off and caused water damage to the house and contents.
- Farmers denied the claim; the Poulsens sued for breach of contract and related claims. Farmers moved for summary judgment arguing the Temporary-Roof Exception (and that the covering was temporary) barred coverage.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Farmers on the ground that, at the time of the storm, there was no "roof" as contemplated by the policy (the plywood, IWS, and underlayment were not a roof but merely component coverings), so the LWC provision never applied.
- The Poulsens appealed, arguing the components constituted a (though partially complete) roof and were not temporary; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plywood + IWS + underlayment constituted a "roof" under the policy | Poulsen: those components, even if shingles were absent, were part of the roof and thus water entered through an opening in the roof caused by windstorm | Farmers: the components were not a roof (only temporary/other coverings) so the LWC roof-based coverage did not apply | Court held these component layers did not constitute a "roof" as the policy contemplates; no coverage |
| Whether the coverings were "temporary" under the Temporary-Roof Exception | Poulsen: the layers were intended as permanent parts of the roof and not temporary tarps or coverings | Farmers: the incomplete roofing system fell within the policy’s exclusion for temporary roofs/coverings | Court did not base decision on temporary exception; it found no roof existed and thus did not reach or rely on the temporary-roof exclusion |
| Whether ambiguities in the policy should be construed for coverage | Poulsen: "roof" could be interpreted to include partially completed roofing systems, so ambiguities favor insured | Farmers: policy language is plain and does not cover incomplete systems | Court found the term "roof" not fairly susceptible to the interpretation urged by Poulsens and declined to construe it to include incomplete roofing systems |
| Whether summary judgment was premature given factual disputes about permanence | Poulsen: disputed facts about whether coverings were temporary precluded summary judgment | Farmers: facts showed no roof existed; summary judgment appropriate as a matter of law | Court affirmed summary judgment, concluding the legal question (definition of roof under policy) could be decided without resolving those factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Sandt, 854 P.2d 519 (Utah 1993) (ambiguities in insurance contracts construed in favor of insured)
- P.E. Ashton Co. v. Joyner, 406 P.2d 306 (Utah 1965) (insured entitled to protection reasonably believed to be afforded by policy language)
- Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., 297 P.3d 578 (Utah 2013) (contract interpretation is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment when provisions are clear)
- Jones v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 286 P.3d 301 (Utah 2012) (standard for summary judgment applied in insurance coverage context)
- Gutkowski v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 176 P.3d 1232 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008) (roof is a unified product of component parts; cited for contrast on defining "roof")