Summaey 2012 WY 22
Summary of Decision February 16, 2012
[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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: Broderick v. Dairyland Insurance Company
Citation: 2012 WY 22
Docket Number: S-11-0096
Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, The Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge
Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Stephen R. Winship of Winship & Winship, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee Dairyland (Defendant): Richard G. Schneebeck & Amanda M. Good of Hirst Applegate, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Schneebeck.
Representing Appellee Schrack (Defendant): Cameron S. Walker of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.
Date of Decision: February 16, 2012
Facts: The appellant was physically injured as a result of an accident caused by an underinsured motorist. Prior to the accident, the appellant purchased an insurance policy for his motorcycle from the appellee insurance company, through his insurance agent, also an appellee in this case. Although the appellant requested “full coverage,” the policy did not include underinsured motorist coverage. All parties acknowledge that neither the appellant nor his wife read the policy. When the other driver’s insurance did not fully cover the appellant’s damages, the appellant sued the appellees, raising numerous theories as to why he should recover under the policy.
After investigating the matter, the appellee insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action in federal district court seeking a determination that it was not required to pay the appellant under the terms of the policy. The action in state district court commenced following the federal court’s dismissal of the lawsuit. Subsequently, Appellees filed separate motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing on the motions, the district court granted both the insurance company’s motion, and the insurance agent’s motion. This appeal followed.
Issues: Did the district court properly grant summary judgment in favor of Appellees?
Holdings: The court held that Wyoming’s uninsured motorist statutes unambiguously do not require insureds to obtain, or insurers to provide, underinsured motorist liability coverage. The liability insurance policy the appellant obtained from the insurance company through the insurance agent unambiguously did not contain underinsured motorist coverage, and unambiguously disallowed changes in its terms except by policy endorsement. The appellant did not know these facts because he did not read the policy. The appellant’s failure to read the policy is available as a defense to both appellees as to the appellant’s negligence and contract claims against them, and bars application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Further, the doctrine of reasonable expectations was not available to alter the unambiguous terms of a policy that the insured did not read. Neither could the policy be reformed to provide underinsured motorist coverage, because there was no antecedent mutual agreement that such would be provided in the policy. The appellee agent did not have actual authority to bind the appellee insurance company to provide underinsured motorist coverage, and he did not have apparent authority to do so, given the unambiguous language of the policy to the contrary. Finally, the appellant cannot pursue a private remedy for an uncured deceptive trade practice under the Wyoming Consumer Protection Act because the statutorily required notice of the alleged deceptive trade practice was not given.
The Court Affirmed.
J. VOIGT delivered the opinion for the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment