Prime Insurance Company v. Graves
367 P.3d 1029
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Graves was injured on a speedboat operated by Rocket Tours in May 2011 and repeatedly notified Rocket Tours of her claim between Aug. 2011 and July 2012. Rocket Tours’ insurance with Prime was a claims-made policy that required written notice to Prime during the policy period; Prime received no notice until Sept. 2013 (after the policy expired).
- Rocket Tours did not defend Prime’s declaratory-action suit; default was entered against Rocket Tours. Graves intervened and answered Prime’s complaint; Prime then moved for summary judgment asserting no duty to defend or indemnify under the policy’s strict notice requirement.
- Prime supported its motion with the policy documents and an affidavit that it had not received timely notice; Prime provided Graves with its existing discovery; Graves moved under Utah R. Civ. P. 56(f) for a continuance to take discovery (including materials from broker Stephen Apetz).
- The trial court denied Graves’s Rule 56(f) motion and granted summary judgment to Prime, concluding Prime had not been notified as required by the claims-made policy and Graves had not shown how further discovery would defeat summary judgment.
- On appeal Graves argued (1) the court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 56(f) continuance and (2) summary judgment was improper, advancing an agency theory that Apetz (the broker) was Prime’s agent such that his knowledge would impute notice to Prime; she also raised public-policy/estoppel arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graves preserved an agency theory for appeal and whether Rule 56(f) denial was an abuse of discretion | Graves argued she lacked time for discovery and (on appeal) that broker Apetz was Prime’s agent so his knowledge would impute notice | Prime argued Graves only sought discovery about why notice wasn’t given and never advanced an agency theory below; further discovery wouldn’t defeat the policy’s written-notice requirement | Preserved only the lack-of-time claim; agency theory was not preserved. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 56(f) because Graves failed to show how additional discovery would oppose summary judgment |
| Whether Prime was entitled to summary judgment on the claims-made policy ground | Graves argued coverage should not be denied on policy formalities and urged agency/notice theories, plus public-policy/estoppel contentions | Prime relied on unambiguous policy language requiring written notice to insurer during the policy period and evidence it received no such notice | Summary judgment affirmed: undisputed evidence showed Prime had no notice within the policy period and policy terms controlled |
| Whether broker Apetz’s knowledge imputed notice to Prime | Graves argued on appeal that Apetz was Prime’s agent so his knowledge should be imputed to Prime | Prime and the court noted agency theory was not raised below and therefore not a proper basis to oppose summary judgment | Agency argument was unpreserved and not considered on the merits |
| Whether public policy or equitable estoppel should prevent enforcement of the claims-made provision | Graves contended it was unfair to bar coverage given Rocket Tours’ failures | Prime relied on clear, unambiguous contract terms and lack of evidence to support equitable exceptions | Court declined to rewrite the clear policy; public-policy and estoppel arguments were undeveloped and rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Grynberg v. Questar Pipeline Co., 70 P.3d 1 (Utah 2003) (summary-judgment review requires viewing facts and inferences in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Price Dev. Co. v. Orem City, 995 P.2d 1237 (Utah 2000) (trial court’s Rule 56(f) decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; summary judgment reviewed for correctness)
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (moving party who would bear burden at trial must establish each element to obtain summary judgment)
- Alf v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 850 P.2d 1272 (Utah 1993) (insurance policies construed as contracts; clear policy language is enforced)
- Pratt v. Mitchell Hollow Irrigation Co., 813 P.2d 1169 (Utah 1991) (appellate review of summary judgment considers only materials properly before the trial court)