Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Sosnin
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 7/19/2011 re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Court will enter an order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Counsel (AEP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-42-H
SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
PLAINTIFF
V.
LINDA M. SOSNIN
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company (“Shelter Mutual”), filed a declaratory
judgment action against Linda Sosnin (the “Insured”) to determine whether the insurance
policies issued to the her require Shelter Mutual to pay for the loss to her barn. The matter is
before the Court on Shelter Mutual’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow,
the Court will sustain the motion.
I.
Shelter Mutual issued a Homeowner’s Insurance Policy (the “Homeowner’s Policy”) to
the Insured covering certain structures and personal property on a five-acre plot of land in
Sheperdsville, Kentucky. In particular, the Homeowner’s Policy insured the primary residence
and what the policy refers to as “other structures,” which are structures not attached to the
primary residence but which are permanently attached to the property. Subsequently, the
Insured constructed a barn on the five-acre plot, and created a living space in the upstairs area of
the barn as a residence for the Insured’s parents. Shelter Mutual issued a Dweller’s Insurance
Policy (the “Dweller’s Policy”) to the Insured and her husband insuring the new building.
On June 21, 2008, the Insured’s husband set fire to the barn and the primary residence’s
detached garage. At the time of the fire, the Insured was staying in the living space of the barn
in order to escape her husband. The husband engaged in a pattern of domestic violence towards
the Insured. In fact, she had an Emergency Protection Order against him at the time of the fire.1
The Insured submitted a claim under the Homeowner’s Policy for the detached garage and the
personal property in the garage, and she submitted a claim under the Dweller’s Policy for the
cost associated with the loss of the barn.
Shelter Mutual filed its declaratory judgment action seeking a determination from the
Court as to whether the Dweller’s Policy covers the loss to the barn. The parties conducted
discovery and Shelter Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the
Dweller’s Policy excludes coverage for the barn under the circumstances of this case. In her
response brief, in addition to asserting that the Dweller’s Policy covers the loss to the barn, the
Insured argues that the Homeowner’s Policy also covers the loss to the barn.
II.
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine dispute exists
if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The court must “view the evidence
and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” Little v. BP Exploration & Oil Co., 265 F.3d, 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2001).
The interpretation and construction of an insurance contract is a matter of law for the
court. Kemper Nat'l Ins. Cos. v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, 82 S.W.3d 869, 871 (Ky. 2002).
1
The Insured’s husband committed suicide on July 9, 2008.
2
Kentucky law mandates that the court construe clear and unambiguous terms in a contract
according to their “plain and ordinary meaning,” Id., and that all uncertainties and ambiguities be
resolved in favor of the insured. James Graham Brown Foundation v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co., 814 S.W.2d 273, 279 (Ky. 1991).
III.
The Homeowner’s Policy contains an “innocent co-insured” provision, which provides
that an innocent co-insured’s claim “will not be denied based on the fact that another insured
intended the act causing the loss.” An innocent co-insured is defined as “an insured...who
suffers property damage caused by a pattern of domestic violence and abuse by an insured who
is criminally prosecuted for the act causing such property damage.” Shelter Mutual concedes
that the Insured is an innocent co-insured as defined by the Homeowner’s Policy. The Insured
argues that because the barn is a permanent attachment to her property but not attached to the
primary residence, the barn is protected under the “other structures” provision of the
Homeowner’s Policy.
Even assuming that the Homeowner’s Policy covers the barn, however, the Insured has
already exhausted the policy limits of the “other structures” provision. Following the fire, the
Insured submitted a claim under the Homeowner’s Policy for the damage to the detached garage,
and the detached garage falls under the “other structures” provision. The “other structures”
provision has a policy limit of $33, 030.00, which is exactly what Shelter Mutual paid the
Insured for her claim. Shelter Mutual has no further liability under the Homeowner’s Policy.
Shelter Mutual argues that it has no liability under the Dweller’s Policy because the
policy contains two provisions that exclude coverage for the Insured’s loss to her barn. The first
3
provision is in the “Conditions” section of the Dweller’s Policy, and it concerns concealment and
fraud. The provision states, “[t]his entire policy is void as to all insureds if any insured has
intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to this
insurance.” No evidence has been put forth that either the Insured or her husband concealed or
misrepresented any material fact or circumstance related to the Dweller’s Policy. Certainly, the
Insured’s husband caused the loss, but there is no indication that he concealed or misrepresented
any information relating to the policy.
The “Exclusions” section of the Dweller’s Policy also contains a provision which
excludes coverage for a loss “resulting directly or indirectly from...neglect of an insured to use
all reasonable means to protect covered property at and after the time of loss or when the
property is threatened by a peril we insure against.” It is undisputed that the Insured’s husband
neglected to use all reasonable means to protect the barn when it was threatened by the fire that
he started. Even in the absence of such a provision, “the failure of the insured to take reasonable
care to avoid loss, or the doing of wrongful acts directly calculated to bring about the lost, may
be such as to defeat a recovery under the policy.” Bindell v. Kenton Cnty. Assessment Fire Ins.
Co., 108 S.W. 325, 326 (Ky. 1908) (citation omitted).
In rebuttal, the Insured argues that the Dweller’s Policy should contain an innocent coinsured provision similar to the one found in the Homeowner’s Policy. She fails to cite any
authority in support of her argument, and the Court can think of no reason to impose such a duty
on Shelter Mutual and all other insurance providers. In fact, in a similar case the Eastern District
of Kentucky held that, under Kentucky law, “a court ‘may not read into a policy of insurance
conditions and terms which are not incorporated therein.’” Bryant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 592 F.
4
Supp. 39, 41 (E.D. Ky. 1984) (citing Old Reliable Ins. Co. v. Brown, 558 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Ky.
Ct. App. 1977)).
The Court will enter an order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
July 19, 2011
cc:
Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?