*1 issues, I proper of dress these and because am of arising cerned with claims out that, addressed, or death ty damage, injury they been such personal operation of motor vehicles. caused very well have led to a might discussion legislatures The of all our States result, respectfully I dissent. different perils daily hazards recognized the and enacted and as a result have
encountered pieces legislation of aimed at
various injured party....
protection general promoted welfare is
That the Govern such laws can be little doubted. P.2d have an un general public ment and COMPANY, INSURANCE FOREMOST problem. derstandable interest in the Plaintiff and Counterdefendant injured disabled from Many persons and Appellant, and pub automobile accidents would become charges lic were it financial assist not for Crandall, PUTZIER and Bob compa ance received from the insurance Harold nies.” v. Iowa Mutual Defendants and Counterclaimants (quoting Simmon Cross-claimants, 318, 121 Casualty 3 Ill.2d N.E.2d and (1954)). and insur- importance Given the of automobile and Defendant Antonio R. ance, society given impact the potential Counterclaimant and Cross-claimant to ex- companies if insurance are allowed Respondent, and coverage, people class from clude this interspousal against is understandable immunity, Clark, Swenson, Brent Hunt- Darrell O. K. in- recognized court has Washington Jaycees, er, Brindley, Falls Lee J. Twin present such as the exclusions surance Swenson, Inc., Defendants and Marion policy. public violate Cross-defendants, the MVSRA The Court’s discussion herring; be a bit of red seems to Dane, this acci- not, Associates, Virginia the time of Stanley MVSRA did Person- dent, type this exclu- specifically prevent of Dud- Representative Estate al sion, it.2 permit Deceased, but neither did Dane, Estate ley C. Dane, will sanction question Dane, of whether this Court Virginia Dudley C. separate entirely Corder, such an is an exclusion Cross-defendants. Sheriff Paul one. the exclusion into The Court reads No. 12934. I it. I do neither. and sanctions Idaho. Supreme legislature’s action interpret li- covering requiring compulsory insurance 16, 1981. April members, I.C. 49- family see ability §§ 233, 49-1521, as even further against pub-
declaring exclusion void majority fails to ad- policy.
lic Since present void be declared as the one should Fire Insurance such 2. As the court in National Union Inc., public policy. the need Exchange, I submit Co. v. Truck Insurance customers, stated, unwary (1971) protect Ariz. “the uncompensated legislature [by passing responsibility a financial need to secure accidents, no- damages arising the need for se- focused ... attention on from auto act] curity against uncompensated damages compa- arising greater where an insurance where than largest operation ny deliberately class from the vehicles on our motor excludes legislature likely highways.” become persons The action of to whom an responsibility family. enacting mili- financial act insured’s liable —members holding tates in favor of a an exclusion *2 Trainor, John A. and Kevin F. Doerr Falls, Twin plaintiff and counterdefen- dant appellant. Beeks, Webb,
Paul M. Beeks Smith & Paine, Burton, Carlson, Pedersen & Donald Rayborn, Ronayne A. Ronayne Rayborn, Falls, Ritchie, & Michael Morfitt Twin Elam, Reid, Burke, Ev- Jeppesen, Coulter & Boise, and coun- for defendants Boyd, ans & terclaimants and cross-claimants.
BISTLINE, Justice. a defend Antonio Guanche named Judicial ant in Action No. Fifth Civil Idaho, action District of the State appeals in addition produced two other were appeals, two this. Those other consolidated, in Foremost Ins decided were urance Co. this Court In that
P.2d 987 as to court’s determination upheld the trial policy purporting under the read liability the extent policy. evidence his insurance contract with simply money plaintiff. paid He taken Foremost from appeal This was told that was ‘covered.’ the trial court’s decision that Foremost “16. defendant intended a first party liable to Antonio *3 property against to insure his loss caused and relationship insured. The of Foremost elements, times theft or the and at all by Guanche is well stated in the trial court’s action believed that material to this findings fact: plaintiff prop- the payment $300 by com- “Insofar as the issues framed the in which he erty jump located at the site plaint and defendant Guanche’s answer by was plaintiff had an interest complaint to are involved in these theft, or calami- following against by loss fire proceedings, the was belief ty. and are made. This belief a reasonable findings conclusions in under the facts this case. The R. “14. defendant Antonio a speaks English heavy 7, Guanche September prior “17. to Sometime dialect, which com- French-Italian makes 1974, pur- had the defendant Guanche language English munication in the diffi- chased, jump had delivered to the and parties. and third cult between Guanche site, large provisions a truckload proceeding At all times material to this beer, melons, ice sisting meat and entrepre- he was as a engaged chef activity Finding cream. described permission neur. He had of the defend- de- property 13 involved owned the by Enterprises Canyon ant River to Snake added.) fendant Guanche.”1 a food on premises erect stand to following con- The trial court entered the drink selling used food and to clusions of law: spectacle. spectators attending public plaintiff accepted pre- “F When the Veccio, was told an by He Guanche, duty mium from it had a River the defendants Knievel and Snake him with the insurance that he was Canyon Enterprises, advise Guanche in detail of risks it began insurance before he assuming was in return for the premium. concession, and that operation his food Failure to do so makes Guanche’s inten- plaintiff. through was obtainable tions and expectations paramount in in- [Foremost] terpreting any the terms of insurance August prior “15. Sometime existing between Guanche and delivered Guanche defendant plaintiff. in the amount of Cardell $300 his check expounded “G Under theories in return for insurance cover- W. Smith Insurance, Corgatelli v. Globe accepted by age. was Guanche’s $300 737], a valid contract [533 plaintiff, Smith behalf existed plaintiff insurance between the was told ‘covered.’ Smith Guanche supported the defendant any finding support will not The record consideration, provided ample plaintiff of ever advised that Guanche coverage party with Guanche desired, or kind of insurance type in which damage property of and loss that Guanche nor will find interest, was and which Guanche plaintiff as to the was ever advised August site between jump at the located specific insurance $300 (Em- 1974.” September provided 1974 and purchasing. He has never been phasis He has not policy. with through its and re- roof a hole Finding crowd broke No. 13: beer, contents, consisting of water- moved its melons, “Shortly beer removed from after the meat, cantaloupes and Finding the semi-trailer referred to in people congregated there- distributed to the large semi- crowd moved over another abouts.” it, trailer, members of surrounded foregoing Foremost moved to mary Judgment delete should not now be en- conclusions, findings and contending that: tered. is, therefore, ORDERED,
“The basis for said Motion “It AD- whether question of or not there was first the de- JUDGED and DECREED that coverage for Guanche under the fendant Antonio R. Guanche recover issued Foremost was Foremost Insurance plaintiff from the not to be tried in the trial on January 13 $29,979.63 damages, together Company 28,1977. plaintiff and March $3,746.10, with taxed and that his costs Foremost did not contemplate that Guanche claims issue would be tried and therefore did be sev- not, fact, present any evidence on the and the remainder ered from this action issue of whether or not there was any according with proceeded of the case be (Em- first party coverage for Guanche.” *4 to law.” phasis added.) monetary judg- Following entry The trial court by order denied Fore- forth, moved for ment above set Guanche motion, most’s but gave leave to Foremost for interest. an amendment so as to to renew it within two weeks an “upon allowing In the amend- a written decision offer of competent evidence in defense of ment, the trial court observed as to Fore- the issues determined of ... favor ... most’s renewed the entry contention that of Guanche plaintiff [Foremost].” findings and conclusions in favor No such offer was ever made. procedurally improper:2 Guanche was complaint against “But Foremost filed
Thereafter a monetary summary judg- ment alleging in favor that it of Guanche and extended Fore- most Guanche no insurance under entered for damages. Guanche’s The judgment and was not liable contains a recitation of the GAL672-7187006 procedure by which led to Guanche for entry: any to the losses suffered him, denying and Guanche filed answer
“Defendant filed ‘Motion for Summary
allegations.
these
to me that
It seems
Judgment’
28, 1977,
October
based
Foremost’s
presented by
overall issue
accompanying
findings
affidavits and
complaint and
answer was
fact and conclusions
August
of law dated
whether there existed
insurance cov-
11,
1977. The motion was heard Decem-
erage for
5,
and that the issue was
1977,
ber
at which time
stipu-
counsel
limited only
lated
to whether
that
damages
defendant’s
were
$29,979.63
provided
GAL672-7187006
insurance cov-
and counsel for defendant
indi-
erage.
addition,
cated
In
there
at the close of the
were no objections to the
trial
entry
given
of a
Foremost asked for and was
summary judgment
for that
sum.
present
Thereafter
time in which to
evi-
stay
order was en-
tered
dence
staying
that was not
proceedings
readily
further
in this
available
action
pending a
the date of
by
determination
trial. And on at least one
Supreme Court
appeal
of an
of the find-
occasion
op-
counsel was
ings of fact and
by
portunity
present
conclusions
law
proof
offer of
other parties to this action. On Decem-
with the assurance that
if the offer of
ber
upon stipulation
proof
indicated the availability of evi-
counsel,
stay
order was vacated by
dence which
change
would tend to
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
modify
findings
and conclusions with
appears
There
to be
why
no reason
Sum-
respect
to Guanche-Foremost
then en-
assign
unreported
Foremost does not
this as an error on
of court and counsel
conference
appeal.
only
We note
may
the action was
have established the issue. Such is
brought
Foremost,
by
clearly
and it
was Foremost
indicated
Foremost’s own motion as
called
developed
Guanche as a witness
quoted,
findings
above
challenging
made in
testimony
recovery.
which was to lead to his
conclusions.
testimony
Before
was taken there was also an
Gardner,
tered,
Inc.,
v.
reopen
Hiram C.
92 Idaho
court would
Shields
proof
Accord,
be submitted
case
allow such
proof
for the
offer of
record. No
Erikson v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance
ever submitted.
I do not think
Fore- Co.,
limitations
a
must be
this case
judge
trial
sumption that the
insurer,
strongly against
Rosenau
comprehending that
Corgatelli without
read
Association,
Mutual
65 Idaho
Idaho
Benefit
favorably
justice
there looked
only
so,
in
(1944),
where
expecta-
the doctrine of reasonable
of what
surer does not inform the insured
see that
readily
could
tions.
trial court
he is
that
obtaining beyond
statement
a dissent
opinion,
the other
denominated
“covered,”
put
he is
limitations later
Donaldson, and
Justice
and authored
by the
must
construed
forth
insurer
be
McFadden,
only
was the
joined by Justice
discussing ques
it.
Here we are
which the
uttered.
plurality opinion
tions of fact.
did
justices
The two
who concurred
Here
where the
we have
situation
gained
the theories
deign to disclose
accepted
court
the uncontra
obviously
trial
of both
reading
their votes. A careful
true, and
moreover,
dicted
of Guanche as
testimony
shows
Corgatelli opinions,
oral con
ambiguous
where
construed the
theories
many
earlier sanctioned
tract
favor: The statement
Guanche’s
expecta-
than the doctrine
reasonable
“covered,”
e.,
(i.
the con
that Guanche was
Those
were
full consideration.
tions
agent),
tract as made
construed
theories,
apply regardless
which still
favor,
him cover
should afford
includ-
expectations,
doctrine
am
age,
patently
since that statement was
acknowledgments
precepts
ed such
biguous. Findings of the trial court
he will
layman “expects
that:
competent evi
supported by
insured;”
are
substantial
in-
“usually an
generally
ex rel.
g.,
dence must be
E.
affirmed.
State
he has
until after
sured never sees his
Fox,
Haman v.
145 secret, unexpressed undisputed we have substantiated. Here and uncommunicated following: evidence which establishes the contracting of a intentions do not . sum paid that Guanche a rather substantial See Amann v. part become contract cover- money period for a rather short Fredrick, (N.D.1977); 257 N.W.2d Wes 436 age, that an him he agent of told Wash.App. 9 Realty, Drewry, co Inc. v. “covered,” under- and that Guanche’s (1973); Williston on 515 P.2d Con standing purchased paid that he had (3d 1962). Cf. Benner v. tracts ed. § first party coverage a rea- was that of Idaho, Inc., Co. of Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. sonable under the of a circumstances (1974) Idaho person in position. stan- Applying the (oral contract of insurance found where in dard rules of construction for insurance particular expressly requested sured (to we contracts add insurance trans- who that he proclaimed actions) ambiguities that all be re- are to would “take care of everything”). insurer, solved what a that some of majority The fails to discuss reasonable person in the position of more salient facts of this case. State and insured would have believed to be licensing county authorities meaning of the stan- language used is the Canyon Enterpris- Knievel and Snake River dard to be resolving used in ambiguities— es liability covering to obtain arewe not persuaded that the trial court question. party coverage event First erred in concluding Guanche had required. Representatives was not of Fore- party coverage protecting him most, Canyon En- Knievel and Snake River losses he sustained. terprises negotiated then the same insur- affirmed, costs, judgment The in- with appeal ance issue in both cluding fees, I.C. 41-1839 attorney § in Foremost Insurance Co. respondent. P.2d 987 was informed that con- some Knievel’s SHEPARD, JJ„ DONALDSON and might cessionaires be added cur. on the policy. insureds BAKES, Representatives of Knievel and Snake Justice, Chief dissenting: Canyon River turn Enterprises informed The most telling majori- statement he, too, need would insurance. ty opinion is as follows: we are “Here There is no Guanche would indication that discussing questions of fact.” majority but for the purchased fact, does make findings of notably most Canyon Enterprises fact Snake River that Foremost and Guanche had entered required it. that he Guanche testified into insurance for first insurance,” busy too “take care of party coverage. thought representatives of Knievel finding majority’s regard Enterprises River Canyon Snake belied trial court’s statement They “take care” of him. did. He was *8 Finding of Fact 15. “The not record will River made an additional insured Snake support any ad- finding Guanche ever Enterprises’ liability policy. Canyon vised type or kind of [Foremost] ” testimony Guanche’s demonstrate does insurance he did desired.... Nowhere thought he “fully” was covered. the trial court conclude that there came When who him that he asked had informed being into an oral contract of insurance. coverage, “full” he answered that Nevertheless, majority oral finds an representatives was the of Knievel and contract of party coverage first in the face Enterprises, explicit Canyon of an Snake River and not finding trial court that agent any agent Guanche never told Foremost’s what did testi- Foremost. Guanche he wanted in way coverage. fy him agent that Foremost’s informed “covered,”
he was although Guanche never insurance contract between existing asked the agent what for.1 Guanche and [Foremost].” The entire transaction is summarized erroneous, legal The above was conclusion neatly in Guanche’s amended counterclaim. expectations hav- of reasonable doctrine “Guanche contracted with Snake River rejected in favor of ing been ... “expressly Canyon Enterprises, Inc., provide to food contract rules of construction.” traditional beverage concessions ... and as a 100 Idaho at Foremost Ins. Co. part contract, of said required was case, being the at 992. That 606 P.2d maintain liability certain insurance in we reverse and remand case ought to
force. Guanche contacted Foremost In- give for a trial in order to lower new surance and asked Company legal its court to correct opportunity an coverage insurance provided. error. in no event should But agreed coverage Foremost legal theory decide on a even the case merely added Guanche’s name as an make an and then asserted insured to the named was appellate finding of fact that there an insurance in the Complaint.” described oral first insurance. party contract of such There evidence to sustain is no directly contrary it is appellate finding, and clear, although majority it is Finally, finding express to the trial court’s it, recognize refuses to that the below court “advised Guanche never [Foremost] based its decision the now squarely ” .... desired type of insurance he or kind expecta- discredited reasonable doctrine of I would reverse. In tions.2 Finding of Fact the trial court stated “intended” that Guanche
insure his property; that he “believed” McFADDEN, J., concurs. had first party coverage; that such was facts belief “reasonable ... under the
in this case.” On the basis of these “facts” expounded Corgatelli
and the “theories Insurance,” court
Globe the trial concluded did for
that there indeed exist contract
first coverage between In so the trial court concluding
Guanche. “Guanche’s
held as matter of law that para- expectations
intentions and [are] interpreting the terms of
mount are, wonder, standings of a reasonable in the I the outer limits of 1. What majority quote “cover- for insurance insured. failed Guanche’s age”? preceding If a Mrs. with a dissent. Guanche blessed in the sentence doubt, during jump, could meaning child recover insurance I think Knievel’s Guanche is in “If of the contract maternity How life benefits? about in which the must sense be construed any children, horse? believed, making, the at the time of insurer coverage the limits should of Guanche’s Corgatelli v. understood terms.” insured established, by his secret unex- be pressed Accident Globe Life & desires, but the context which the J„ (1975) (Donaldson, dis- Thus, obtained. the trial court applied to the senting). If that standard were probability that should consider the case, no doubt as there could be instant procure, intended to and Foremost intended case, In Guanche’s end result. merely adding sell, only satisfied negoti- to a an additional county’s requirements, did not include coverage. Any liability special ated party coverage. mildly *9 unex- to discover that astonished pressed language majority quotes 2. The from the some ripen into desires its assertion dissent coverage. ambiguous that an insurance contract should with the under- be construed accordance