943 F. Supp. 2d 1010
E.D. Mo.2013Background
- Thunder Basin seeks a declaratory judgment that National Union must defend/indemnify it as an additional insured under TIC's Zurich policy.
- Underlying suits in District of Wyoming involve injuries from a crane collapse during TIC’s project at Thunder Basin’s Black Thunder Mine.
- Thunder Basin and TIC's contract required TIC to obtain primary/excess insurance and name Thunder Basin as additional insured.
- Zurich policy endorses coverage for additional insureds under a contract, covering bodily injury caused by TIC or those acting on its behalf.
- Court applies Missouri conflict-of-laws rules and Wyoming law to interpret the policy, with the Wyoming venue focusing on the risk at the Wyoming mine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Zurich policy covers an additional insured for bodily injury caused by TIC or its agents | Thunder Basin argues the language covers bodily injury caused in part by TIC or its agents | National Union argues coverage only for vicarious liability, which Wyoming law precludes | No; policy language unambiguously includes bodily injury caused by TIC or those acting on TIC’s behalf |
| What law governs the interpretation of the policy | Missouri conflict rules apply; policy lacks a designated state law | Wyoming law should apply as the location of the risk | Wyoming law governs interpretation under Missouri conflict rules |
| Whether the clause 'caused, in whole or in part, by' TIC or those acting on its behalf extends coverage beyond vicarious liability | Clause supports coverage for injuries attributable to both TIC and Thunder Basin’s underlying actors | Coverage limited by vicarious liability or by focusing solely on TIC’s liability | Coverage extends to injuries at least partly caused by TIC or those acting for TIC |
| Whether Wyoming public policy (§ 30-1-131) precludes additional insured coverage where indemnity is involved | Statute does not preclude insurance coverage when only procurement of insurance is required | Statute voids indemnity provisions and may bar coverage | Statute does not invalidate Thunder Basin’s additional insured coverage where indemnity is not involved |
Key Cases Cited
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co. of Wyo., 612 P.2d 463 (Wyo. 1980) (interpretation of insurance contracts under Wyoming law)
- Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 664 F.3d 589 (5th Cir. 2011) (insurer’s duty to defend/contract interpretation in an insured context)
- Pro Con, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 794 F.Supp.2d 242 (D. Me. 2011) (constructing coverage for additional insureds under 'caused, in whole or in part' language)
- Roy Anderson Corp. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 358 F.Supp.2d 553 (S.D. Miss. 2005) (distinction between indemnity vs. insurance procurement in public policy)