Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co.

Date: 05-31-2002

Case Number: 87005

Judge: Davis

Court: In The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas

Plaintiff's Attorney: "_new">Michael W. Murphy, of Galloway, Wiegers & Heeney, PA, of Marysville, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant Gale Liggatt.

"_new">William J. Pauzauskie, of Oyler & Pauzauskie, of Topeka, was on the brief for appellant Janet Hathaway.

Defendant's Attorney: "_new">Steve R. Fabert, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP., argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Employers Mutual Casualty Company.

Description:

Passenger Janet Hathaway filed a tort action against driver Gale Liggatt for injuries she sustained in a one vehicle motorcycle accident. Liggatt's insurer, Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMC), denied coverage and refused to defend based upon a specific policy exclusion for a vehicle with less than four wheels. Hathaway's garnishment action against EMC based upon a consent judgment and Liggatt's breach of contract action against EMC for attorney fees expended in defending Hathaway's tort action both failed on summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to EMC, concluding that the clearly expressed intent of the parties and not the reasonable expectations of the insured controlled. We agree and affirm.

Hathaway was a passenger on a three-wheeled vehicle operated by Liggatt. She was severely injured when the vehicle ran off the road. Hathaway was the owner of the vehicle. She filed suit against Liggatt for personal injuries she suffered in the single vehicle accident. EMC refused to defend the action based upon its determination that its policy of insurance covering Liggatt's vehicle, which also happened to be a motorcycle, did not provide coverage for his use of Liggatt's three-wheeled vehicle. Liggatt was defended under reservation of rights by an attorney retained by his homeowners insurance company.

After notice to EMC, a consent judgment was entered against Liggatt in favor of Hathaway for $676,846.44. Within the same action, Hathaway obtained a garnishment to collect her judgment against EMC, and Liggatt filed a separate breach of contract action against EMC to recover his attorney fees in defending Hathaway's action against him. The two cases were consolidated, and the trial court entered summary judgment for EMC and dismissed Liggatt's claim for attorney fees.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the
full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome:

We have determined that the trial court was correct in concluding that the policy before this court is not ambiguous. It necessarily follows that the clear language of the exclusion is to be enforced as written. Hathaway concedes that the mandatory insurance coverage laws of this state do not require coverage for claims such as made in this case. It is therefore unclear how a contract excluding such coverage could be defective under 50-639(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, the exclusion applicable in this case, given the only reasonable interpretation available, clearly notified Liggatt that EMC did not cover the injuries sustained by Hathaway. The trial court did not err in excluding other insurance policies.

Affirmed for Plaintiff Hathaway for $676,846.00.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Unavailable

Defendant's Experts:

Unavailable

Comments:

C.L.

About This Case

What was the outcome of Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co.?

The outcome was: We have determined that the trial court was correct in concluding that the policy before this court is not ambiguous. It necessarily follows that the clear language of the exclusion is to be enforced as written. Hathaway concedes that the mandatory insurance coverage laws of this state do not require coverage for claims such as made in this case. It is therefore unclear how a contract excluding such coverage could be defective under 50-639(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, the exclusion applicable in this case, given the only reasonable interpretation available, clearly notified Liggatt that EMC did not cover the injuries sustained by Hathaway. The trial court did not err in excluding other insurance policies. Affirmed for Plaintiff Hathaway for $676,846.00.

Which court heard Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co.?

This case was heard in In The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, KS. The presiding judge was Davis.

Who were the attorneys in Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Michael W. Murphy, of Galloway, Wiegers & Heeney, PA, of Marysville, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant Gale Liggatt. William J. Pauzauskie, of Oyler & Pauzauskie, of Topeka, was on the brief for appellant Janet Hathaway.. Defendant's attorney: Steve R. Fabert, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP., argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Employers Mutual Casualty Company..

When was Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co. decided?

This case was decided on May 31, 2002.