Policy Does Not Separately Cover Mental Distress Damages, Appeals Court Rules

A vehicle driven by Marilyn Mong struck a tractor driven by her husband Tim, resulting in Tim’s death at the scene. Kolt Mong, Marilyn’s stepson and Tim’s natural son, was in Marilyn’s vehicle at the time; he subsequently filed a negligence action against Marilyn seeking damages for mental distress. In another case, Tim’s estate and his heirs filed both a survival and a wrongful death claim. The insurance company that provided liability coverage to Marilyn, with limits of $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident, defended her in both lawsuits.

Kolt also filed a declaratory judgment action asking a Kansas state court to determine that the insurance policy provided up to $100,000 in liability coverage for his mental distress claim over and above the $100,000 limit for the wrongful death and survival claims resulting from his father’s death. The court ruled, however, that any of Kolt’s claims resulting from witnessing his father’s death were included in the $100,000 limit provided for the injury and death of his father. Therefore, those claims were not entitled to a separate $100,000 limit.

Kolt appealed. He acknowledged that he had suffered no immediate bodily injury from the accident, but he argued that his claim for the severe mental anguish with physical bodily manifestations he allegedly suffered as a result of witnessing his father’s death constituted a separate and independent injury “resulting from” the death of his father. That entitled him to an additional $100,000 per person coverage over and above the $100,000 available for the wrongful death and survival claims that were covered under the policy, Kolt contended.

The Kansas court of appeals rejected that argument and affirmed the trial court’s decision. It explained that, in essence, Kolt argued he suffered mental distress from witnessing his father’s death. The court of appeals pointed out that Kolt did not argue that he suffered mental distress from a bodily injury he himself had sustained in the accident. As such, the court of appeals found, any damages Kolt was entitled to claim for such mental distress resulted from the physical bodily injury that caused his father’s death. Under the “clear and unambiguous terms” of the insurance policy, those claimed damages were included within the limits of coverage provided for the injury that caused his father’s death, the court of appeals concluded. [Partridge v. Mong, No. 102,541 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2011).]

Case & Point

Recent noteworthy decisions

“Exclusion to an Exclusion” Cannot Yield Coverage, Federal Court Rules

Alleging that the mobile home and trailer they purchased had been defectively manufactured, the purchasers sued K&C Conversions. The company sought coverage under its insurance policy, but the insurer denied the claim. K&C assigned its claims against the insurer to the purchasers, who sued the insurer. The insurer moved to dismiss, contending that the claim against K&C was not covered because of the “Damage to Your Product” and “Damage to Your Work” exclusions. The purchasers responded that the claimed damage fell within an exclusion to an exclusion, and therefore was covered.

A federal district court in New Jersey granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss. It found that an “exclusion to an exclusion cannot produce a grant of coverage,” and concluded that the property damage claim was not covered by the policy. [Wenzel v. Nautilus Ins. Co., No. 10-6270 (SRC) (MAS) (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2011).]

Failure to Obtain Insurer’s Consent Before Settling Dooms Insured’s Coverage Claim

A home builder repaired imitation stucco siding on homes it had built and then sought to be indemnified by its insurer. The builder contended that the settlement agreements it reached with homeowners established its legal liability by imposing a contractual obligation to repair water damage to the homes as a result of the use of the siding. The court rejected the builder’s contentions, noting that the policy required that the builder obtain the insurer’s consent before settling homeowners’ claims. Its failure to do so doomed its coverage claim, and the insurer was not required to establish that it had been prejudiced by those settlements, the court concluded. [Markel American. Ins. Co. v. Lennar Corp., No. 14-10-00008-CV (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011).]