Summary 2005 WY 154

Summary of Decision issued December 1, 2005

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]


Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Cathcart v. State Farm Ins. Co.

Citation: 2005 WY 154

Docket Number: 05-43

Appeal from the District Court of Converse County, Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Terry W. Mackey of Moriarty, Gooch, Badaruddin & Booke, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Todd H. Hambrick and Stephanie A. Hambrick of Krampner, Fuller & Hambrick, Casper, Wyoming; Shawna M. Geiger of Shawna Mackey-Geiger, P.C., Greenwood Village, Colorado. Argument by Mr. Mackey.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Julie Nye Tiedeken of Tiedeken & Scoggin, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: December 1, 2005

Issues: Whether the trial court correctly granted Appellee summary judgment on Appellant’s breach of contract claim for the reason that there was no material issue of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. Whether the trial court properly allowed evidence of the motor vehicle accident which gave rise to Appellant’s claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing to be admitted into evidence during trial. Whether the trial court properly allowed the jury to hear about the factors considered by State Farm in its evaluation including witness statements of marijuana use by Appellant. Whether the trial court properly allowed the jurors to submit questions to be asked of witnesses pursuant to Rule 39.4 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether the court correctly instructed the jury on the law.

Holdings: Summary judgment orders are reviewed with the perspective most favorable to the party opposing the motion and give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn fairly from the record. Admissibility of evidence and alleged error regarding juror questions are reviewed with an abuse of discretion standard. The review of claimed error with respect to jury instructions is controlled by W.R.C.P. 51(b).
In this case, the record did not contain a transcript of the summary judgment hearing nor a decision letter setting forth the district court’s ruling. As a result, the Court did not know the basis for the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Court agreed with Appellee that the policy language was clear and unambiguous and therefore limited their inquiry to the four corners of the document and interpreted it with the ordinary and usual meaning of its terms. Appellee complied with the requirements of the policy provision for uninsured motorist. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. Review of the scheduling order and the course of events leading up to the summary judgment by the district court led the Court to state they were hard pressed to find error, particularly where the summary judgment at issue involves interpretation of clear contract language and little in the way of factual dispute.
Appellant’s claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing must be established by showing the existence of a contract, a breach and damages.

The decision was affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.