[¶ 1] Larry Thompson appealed a declaratory judgment ruling Center Mutual Insurance Company (“Center Mutual”) had no duty to defend or indemnify him in a civil action brought against him by his son, John Thompson. We affirm.
[¶ 2] On January 11, 1992, John Thompson, an eighteen-year-old high school senior, was injured when his arms became entangled in a power takeoff shaft for an auger on his family’s farm, where he lived with his parents, Larry and Karen Thompson. At the time of John’s injury, his parents had a farm owner’s insurance policy with Center Mutual that included a Farm Employer’s Liability Coverage endorsement.
[¶ 3] John Thompson sued Larry Thompson in 1997 to recover damages resulting from his 1992 injury. Center Mutual sued Larry Thompson for a declaratory judgment ruling it had no duty to defend or indemnify him in the suit brought against him by John. In its complaint, Center Mutual alleged it denied coverage because John Thompson “was a resident of the Larry Thompson household,” and his claims were excluded by the following exclusion:
Coverage L 1 does not apply to:
1. bodily injury to you, and if residents of your household, your relatives, and persons under the age of 21 in your care....
In an October 22, 1997, letter to John Thompson’s attorney, Center Mutual said:
As you know, Center Mutual has filed a declaratory action pertaining to Larry Thompson’s insurance policy. It appears clear that his insurance policy does not provide coverage for resident relatives or employees, and as a result, there is no liability coverage for John Thompson. However, if you are aware of any facts which would affect coverage under Larry Thompson’s policy, please inform us in order that we may reevaluate our position and settlement posture.
On December 18, 1997, Larry Thompson answered Center Mutual’s complaint, denying the claims were excluded from coverage, and asserting the policy was ambiguous and should be interpreted to provide coverage. Larry also counterclaimed against Center Mutual for $3,000,000, alleging he had agreed to entry of judgment against him and in favor of John Thompson for $3,000,000. 2
[¶ 4] The liability coverage section of the Center Mutual farm owner’s policy defines a farm employee as “an employee of an insured whose duties are in connection with the farming operations of the insured.” It provides for Coverage L — Personal Liability, and Coverage M — Medical Payments to Others. In the exclusions to coverages L & M, it provides:
This policy does not apply to:
12. bodily injury to a farm employee of an insured if it occurs in the course of employment....
For Coverage L, it also excludes:
1. bodily injury to you, and if residents of your household, your relatives, and persons under the age of 21 in your care ...;
For Coverage M, it excludes bodily injury to “an insured or other person who resides on the insured premises, except a domestic employee.”
[¶ 5] The Farm Employer’s Liability Coverage endorsement to the farm owner’s policy does not specify any number of employees to be covered and does not indicate any farm employees not to be covered in spaces provided for such disclosures. It provides coverage:
Coverage L — Personal Liability and Coverage M — Medical Payments to Others are extended to apply to bodily injury to a, farm employee while performing duties in connection with the farming operations of an insured.
This coverage includes the following:
1. Coverages L and M apply to bodily injury to a person while performing duties as a farm employee if the bodily injury results;
[[Image here]]
b. From the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of a motorized vehicle ....
It provides the following exclusion:
4. Coverage under this endorsement does not apply to liability for bodily injury excluded under the Liability Coverage Section and not specifically covered under this endorsement.
[¶ 6] Center Mutual sought partial summary judgment that there was no coverage under the liability coverage section because John Thompson was a member of Larry Thompson’s family, living on the family farm, and excluded under the household resident exclusion. Larry Thompson moved for summary judgment on the ground John was an employee under the farm employer’s liability endorsement. The trial court denied both motions.
[¶ 7] After a trial, the trial court found John Thompson “was a ‘family member’ and a ‘resident relative’ of Larry and Karen Thompson’s as those words were used for the Center Mutual Farm Owner’s Policy in effect,” and “for purposes of coverage under the Farm Employer’s Liability Coverage of that Farm Owner’s Insurance Policy, John Thompson was not a farm employee on the date of his suffering the severe injuries on January 11, 1992.” The court concluded John Thompson was not an employee:
While he did work on the farm as a member of the family and did work that would be constituting farm work, he was not a farm employee nor was he an independent contractor. Rather, he was merely doing what his father expected ■ him to do which was do certain responsibilities as a member of the family growing up on the farm.
The court ordered a declaratory judgment ruling Center Mutual had no duty to defend or indemnify Larry Thompson, “since John Thompson was not a farm employee and was a ‘resident relative’ and ‘family member’ of Larry and Karen Thompson.” Larry Thompson appealed the judgment entered on April 10, 2000.
I
[¶ 8] Relying on
General Accident Ins. Group v. Cirucci,
[¶ 9] Generally, an insurer denying liability on specified grounds may not sub
Although an insurer may disclaim coverage for a valid reason ... the notice of disclaimer must promptly apprise the claimant with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated. Absent such specific notice, a claimant might have difficulty assessing whether the insurer will be able to disclaim successfully. This uncertainty could prejudice the claimant’s ability to ultimately obtain recovery. In addition, the [insurer’s] responsibility to furnish notice of the specified ground on which the disclaimer is based is not unduly burdensome, the insurer being highly experienced and sophisticated in such matters.
In
Allickson,
[¶ 10] Larry Thompson argues “[i]t appears that under the holding in
D.E.M. v. Allickson, Id.,
that Center Mutual cannot be allowed to argue that the endorsement does not apply to John.” However, that case was decided on the basis of es-toppel. “The crucial elements of estoppel in this context are the insurer’s stated reliance upon one ground for denying liability without stating additional known grounds, and resulting prejudice to the claimant.”
Allickson,
II
[¶ 11] Larry Thompson asserts the Center Mutual insurance policy should be construed to provide coverage in accordance with his reasonable expectations. He argues “a policy holder’s reasonable expectations regarding the nature, scope and terms of his insurance coverage should be honored by the Courts even though a careful review of the policy language reveals a particular limitation or exclusion.” He asserts “[t]he Reasonable Expectations Doctrine has been adopted by the North Dakota Supreme Court,” and he contends “[i]t certainly is not unreasonable for Larry Thompson to expect that a farm employee’s liability endorsement would apply when his only farm employee was his son John.”
[¶ 12] In affirming a judgment against an insurer, two justices in
Mills v. Agrichemical Aviation, Inc.,
III
[¶ 13] Larry Thompson contends the trial court was legally incorrect in concluding John Thompson was not a farm employee under the policy definition of a farm employee. He argues 1) the policy does not
[¶ 14] We recently addressed our review of a trial court’s interpretation of an insurance policy in
DeCoteau v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.,
The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal. Close,1998 ND 167 , ¶ 12,583 N.W.2d 794 . We review a trial court’s interpretation of an insurance policy by independently examining and construing the policy. Id. We look first to the language of the policy as a whole, and if the language is clear on its face, there is no room for construction. See Thompson v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.,466 N.W.2d 115 , 119 (N.D.1991). The determination of whether or not a policy is ambiguous is a question of law for the court. Sellie v. North Dakota Ins. Guar. Ass’n,494 N.W.2d 151 , 156 (N.D.1992).
“[TJerms of an insurance policy are given their ordinary, usual and commonly accepted meaning.”
Thedin v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co.,
[¶ 15] “The absence of a definition in and of itself does not establish ambiguity.”
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.,
[¶ 16] Center Mutual’s failure to define an employee does not render the policy ambiguous or require construing the policy against Center Mutual. The policy defines a farm employee as “an employee of an insured whose duties are in connection with the farming operations of the insured.” Thus, the existence of coverage requires a finding that an individual is an employee, which the policy does not define. Because the insurance policy does not define “employee,” we must apply the plain, ordinary meaning of the term. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (2d College ed.1980) defines an employee as “a person hired by another, or by a business firm, etc., to work for wages or salary.” The American Hentage Dictionary of the English Language (1973) defines an employee as a “person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation.” Thus, in ordinary usage, an employee is a person who works for another in exchange for compensation.
[¶ 17] An employer-employee relationship is based on a contract. “We are satisfied that absent an indication of a different meaning in an insurance contract, the word ‘employee,’ understood in its common and usual sense, signifies one who is a party to an employment contract, express or implied,”
Savoie v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.,
[¶ 18] We conclude the trial court did not err, as a matter of law, in determining an employee covered by the endorsement is one who works for another in exchange for consideration.
IV
[¶ 19] Larry Thompson contends the trial court erred in determining John was not, in fact, an employee.
[¶20] “[T]he existence of an employment relationship is ordinarily a question of fact.” Great
West Cas. Co. v. Bergeson,
[¶ 21] In determining if an individual is an employee under an insurance policy, courts look to such factors as the alleged employer’s control over the individual, the alleged employer’s ability to discharge the individual, whether the employer furnished materials, tools, or equipment, the regularity of work, and if the employer compensated the individual for work performed.
Illinois Founders Ins. Co. v. Barnett,
Here, Ted Hudson was a minor. He was a nephew (by marriage) of Herbert L. Miller. He lived nearby, and as was natural, Mr. Miller sometimes invited Ted or his brother to assist him in small jobs. Never was any pay stipulated or expected. Never was any length of employment discussed or contemplated. Ted was free to help or not to help. He was free to do the job as Mr. Miller wanted it done, or he could have declined. It was always a pure and simple accommodation on the part of Ted Hudson. Never did he tell his uncle, “You owe me so much,” but always “I charge you nothing.” Every time Mr. Miller gave the boy any money, it was a gratuity in appreciation for the help rather than a wage given in payment of service.
Ordinarily, a family relationship does not achieve the status of an employment relationship without characteristics peculiar to employment, such as compensation, regularly scheduled hours, and continuity of service.
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weber,
[¶ 22] Larry Thompson testified: 1) John “was expected, just like every other farm boy around the country, to help out on the farm and do the chores and activi
[¶ 23] John Thompson testified: 1) he never referred to his father as his employer or to himself as an employee; 2) he was “doing the farm work just as all the other farm boys in — in the area would”; 3) he never had a contractual arrangement about what to do with his father, who “just told us what to do”; and 4) there was never a written or verbal arrangement to be paid “like monthly salaries.”
[¶ 24] There is evidence supporting the trial court’s finding “John Thompson was not a farm employee on the date of his suffering the severe injuries on January 11, 1992,” and we conclude the finding is not clearly erroneous.
[¶ 25] Affirmed.
Notes
. Coverage L covers personal liability for bodily injury or property damage.
. On January 29, 1998, judgment was entered in John's suit against Larry. It provided judgment against Larry and in favor of John for $3,000,000, and provided John "may seek only to satisfy this judgment from Center Mutual Insurance Company and/or the agent or any insurance company insuring the agent who sold Larry Thompson the policy.”