Praveen Khurana v. Amco Insurance Company
Background
- Khurana and Perry purchased a businessowners policy from AMCO covering Property and Liability for their Lewiston, Idaho restaurant.
- The policy contains separate "coverage territory" definitions: Property Coverage limits territory to the U.S., its territories, Puerto Rico, and Canada; Liability Coverage has broader, different territorial provisions (including certain international travel and specific extra‑territorial triggers).
- In June 2016 Khurana and Perry were in Bangkok, Thailand, when restaurant uniforms and decorative items were stolen; they filed a claim with AMCO, which AMCO denied.
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, bad faith, and related theories; AMCO moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for AMCO; Khurana appealed, arguing (1) the phrase "coverage territory" is ambiguous, (2) the court failed to construe facts in his favor, (3) the court ignored an estoppel claim, and (4) he is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the differing "coverage territory" definitions make the policy ambiguous | Khurana: two definitions create ambiguity that must be construed for the insured | AMCO: definitions apply to separate coverage parts and are unambiguous in context | Court: No ambiguity; provisions operate in distinct spheres and are unambiguous |
| Whether facts should be construed in favor of Khurana on summary judgment | Khurana: disputed facts and inferences favor him and preclude summary judgment | AMCO: undisputed policy language disposes of coverage as a matter of law | Court: Review of record shows no genuine factual dispute on coverage—plain policy language controls |
| Whether promissory estoppel based on agent oral statements was properly before the court | Khurana: complaint title "Promissory Estoppel" preserves estoppel claim based on agent promises | AMCO: estoppel was not properly pleaded with facts supporting relief | Court: Estoppel not properly pleaded under I.R.C.P. 8(a)(2); court did not consider it on summary judgment |
| Whether appellant is entitled to attorney fees on appeal | Khurana: seeks fees as prevailing party | AMCO: prevailed and sought costs | Court: AMCO prevailed; awarded costs under Idaho Appellate Rule 40 (not attorney fees to Khurana) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Title Ins. Co., 103 Idaho 875 (insurance policy construed as other contracts)
- Clark v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 138 Idaho 538 (clear policy language enforces plain meaning)
- Cascade Auto Glass, Inc. v. Idaho Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 141 Idaho 660 (ambiguity is a question of law; consider policy as a whole)
- Nedrow v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 132 Idaho 421 (ambiguous provisions are those reasonably subject to conflicting interpretations)
- Estes v. Barry, 132 Idaho 82 (cause of action not properly pleaded may not be considered on summary judgment)