Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02079/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02079-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

FILED 

Uoited Stares c.ou,< of Appes)s Tt!nth Cfrcuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 171989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM H. WHITE and MARGARET WHITE, 

d/b/a GREENSPROUT NURSERY, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SUSAN C. WINTER; DINA DARLING; 

TRUDI OSBORNE, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-2079 

) (D.C. No. 85-4414) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2079 Document: 01019975936 Date Filed: 08/17/1989 Page: 1 
Defendants appeal from an order of the district court 

granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff 

commenced a declaratory judgment action in the district court 

seeking a determination of whether it was obligated to provide 

coverage under an insurance policy issued to defendants for the 

damage to Greensprout Nursery caused by a fire. The fire occurred 

when fireworks being sold inside the building accidentally 

ignited. Although the policy did not expressly exclude coverage 

for sale of fireworks, the policy did exclude coverage for losses 

occurring due to hazards which were "increased by any means within 

the control or knowledge of the insured." 

The district court declared that plaintiff was not liable for 

property damage to Greensprout Nursery. Recognizing that the 

operation of a fireworks stand in a greenhouse is an increased 

hazard to the property, see Standard Marine Ins. Co. v. Peck, 342 

P.2d 661, 662 (Colo. 1959), the district court determined the 

hazard provision was not ambiguous even though it did not 

explicitly mention fireworks. The district court concluded the 

doctrine of waiver and estoppel could not be applied to expand the 

coverage of the policy. See Hennes Erecting Co. v. National Union 

Fire Ins. Co., 813 F.2d 1074, 1078 (10th Cir. 1987); Prime 

Drilling Co. v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 304 F.2d 221, 224 

(10th Cir. 1962); Western Food Prods. Co. v. United States Fire 

Ins. Co., 699 P.2d 579, 584 (Kan. App. 1985); Ron Henry Ford, 

Lincoln, Mercury, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 667 P.2d 

907, 909 (Kan. App. 1983); Swanston v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Sec'y, 636 

P.2d 1368, 1371 (Kan. App. 1981). 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2079 Document: 01019975936 Date Filed: 08/17/1989 Page: 2 
.. . ' 

After reviewing the briefs, record on appeal, and relevant 

case law, we conclude the district court correctly granted summary 

judgment for plaintiff and declared that the policy did not cover 

property damage caused by the fire. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for 

substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its 

memorandum and order filed June 9, 1988. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2079 Document: 01019975936 Date Filed: 08/17/1989 Page: 3