United Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Thompson, 758 F.3d 959

Rose Concrete issued a commercial general liability policy to Rose Concrete; United Fire sought a declaration that Rockett was not covered.
Rockett, a Rose Concrete supervisor, was added to Thompson's Missouri state suit for alleged negligent acts related to a defective dump truck.
Rockett was sued, defaulted, and Thompson sought equitable garnishment under Mo. Ann. Stat. § 379.200 against the policy.
The district court granted United Fire summary judgment, holding Rockett was not an insured because he was not a board member and the policy’s 1(d) term applied to directors.
Policy section 1(d) insures an organization’s executive officers and directors only with respect to duties as officers/directors; it does not extend to non-board employees.
The E.D. Missouri action was governed by Missouri law; this court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 'directors' in 1(d) cover only board members?	Thompson argues ambiguous term could include Rockett.	United Fire contends 'directors' unambiguously refers to board members within a corporation.	Unambiguous; only board members are insured under 1(d).
Is Rockett an insured under 1(d) given Rose Concrete's corporate form?	Rockett could be a director in practice; ambiguity supports coverage.	Policy context ties 1(d) to board membership; Rockett was not a director.	Rockett not insured; not a board member.
Should the policy be interpreted in context of the whole contract?	Ambiguities should be construed in favor of coverage.	Terms interpreted in context; 1(d) references corporate structure and excludes non-board employees.	Context supports narrow reading; coverage limited to directors.
Are there any employee coverage provisions that could cover Rockett?	Possible employee coverage provisions could apply.	Policy contains explicit distinctions; no provision broadens 1(d) to cover Rockett.	No additional employee coverage for Rockett.
What governing law governs interpretation of the policy?	Not explicitly stated in the issue.	Missouri law governs due to diversity jurisdiction.	Missouri law applies; standard of interpretation follows Missouri precedents.

Schmitz v. Great Am. Assurance Co., 337 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. banc 2011) (ordinary-meaning standard for contract terms in insurance policies)
Bailey v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 152 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (ambiguity determined by entire policy and reasonable reader understanding)
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Noble Broad., 936 S.W.2d 810 (Mo. banc 1997) (ambiguity exists when language reasonably open to different constructions)
Strader v. Progressive Ins., 230 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (ambiguities construed against insurer; context matters)
American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Wyatt, 400 S.W.3d 417 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (words interpreted in context of the policy; not isolated terms)