Case Law Watch

MiscellaneousJones v. County of Missoula
(Montana, Jan. 4, 2006)

Ruling: At issue on this appeal was whether the county deprived citizens of their constitutional right to participate in the operation of government by failing to give citizens proper notice of a vote regarding domestic partner benefits for county employees.

In a split decision, the Montana Supreme Court held that the issue of extending insurance benefits to domestic partners of county employees was an issue of significant public interest that required an opportunity for public participation. The court also said the county provided sufficient notice to citizens regarding an upcoming vote on the extension of insurance benefits. And the court said the county was not required by statute to publish guidelines to facilitate public participation in government.

OccurrenceGreen v. State Farm Fire & Casualty
(Utah Court of Appeals, Dec. 30, 2005)

Ruling: In this dispute, the homeowner sued the insured developer after he sustained property damages as a result of a landslide. At the time of the landslide, the insured was insured by a contractor/builder’s risk insurance issued by the defendant insurer. The insured initiated a declaratory judgment action against the insurer, seeking defense and indemnification under the policy. The lower court entered summary judgment for the insured, and the insurer appealed.

A key issue on appeal was whether the homeowner’s allegations against the insured constituted an “occurrence” under the policy. An “occurrence” was essentially defined to be the equivalent of an accident. The underlying complaint alleged intentional and negligent misrepresentation and breach of implied warranty claims against the insured in connection with the sale of real property.

In reversing the lower court and following precedent, the Court of Appeals held that the homeowner’s allegations in the complaint did not constitute an “occurrence” because allegations of intentional and negligent misrepresentation include an element of intent on the part of the insured and, therefore, are purposeful rather than accidental. Accordingly, those allegations do not constitute an occurrence under the policy to trigger the insurer’s obligation to defend the insured.

Information compiled by Kevin T. Merriman of Goldberg Segalla LLP. Web site: www.goldbergsegalla.com. Copyright 2006 Goldberg Segalla LLP, all rights reserved.

Topics Lawsuits