State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Dawson
687 F. App'x 740
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Charles Dawson, a high‑school math teacher, communicated inappropriately with a student and obtained nude photos; he was criminally prosecuted.
- The student sued Dawson in Oklahoma state court for invasion of privacy, intrusion on seclusion, negligence, and negligence per se (State Court Action).
- Dawson tendered the defense to his State Farm homeowners policy; State Farm defended under a reservation of rights and then sought a federal declaratory judgment that the Policy provided no coverage.
- The district court granted summary judgment for State Farm, holding the State Court Action did not allege “bodily injury” or “property damage” as defined by the Policy.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, applied Oklahoma contract law to the Policy definitions, and affirmed summary judgment for State Farm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State Court Action seeks recovery for “bodily injury” as defined by the Policy | Dawson: student’s alleged harms include physical injury or at least raise factual dispute (mother’s uncertain testimony) | State Farm: petition and testimony show no physical injury; Policy excludes purely emotional injuries | Held: No genuine dispute — no physical injury alleged; emotional harms excluded from “bodily injury” definition; no coverage |
| Whether the State Court Action seeks recovery for “property damage” as defined by the Policy | Dawson: student lost a tangible interest in attending brick‑and‑mortar school (forced to finish online) | State Farm: no allegation of damage to tangible property; educational loss is intangible and not “tangible property” or loss of use of tangible property | Held: Education is intangible and not “tangible property”; no loss of use of tangible property alleged; no coverage |
| Whether the Policy’s plain language should be disregarded to find coverage for emotional/inangible harms | Dawson (district court argument): exclusion of emotional injury should be ignored | State Farm: enforce plain policy language as written | Held: Court enforces plain language; Dawson did not press this on appeal and court declines to rewrite contract |
| Whether summary judgment was proper under applicable standards (evidence sufficiency) | Dawson: raised enough doubt via testimony to preclude summary judgment | State Farm: nonmoving party failed to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial | Held: Summary judgment proper — mere metaphysical doubt insufficient; Matsushita standard applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 781 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment in appeals)
- Cornhusker Cas. Co. v. Skaj, 786 F.3d 842 (10th Cir. 2015) (applying state substantive law in diversity actions)
- BP Am., Inc. v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 148 P.3d 832 (Okla. 2005) (insurance‑policy interpretation; plain meaning governs)
- Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 89 P.3d 1051 (Okla. 2004) (courts cannot rewrite clear insurance contract terms)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must present specific facts to create a genuine issue of material fact)
- Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 913 P.2d 1322 (Okla. 1996) (definition and distinction between tangible and intangible property)