Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02142/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02142-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WARREN G. SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. No . 87-2142 

(W.D . Oklahoma) 

FILED 

United St.ates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci"rcnit 

MAR 1 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a corporation, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CIV-86-1899-A) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BRORBY and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

In this diversity case, Warren G. Smith sued Home Insurance 

Company for dismemberment insurance benefits, due to Smith's loss 

of the use of both his feet in an automobile accident. The 

district court granted summary judgment for the insurer, and we 

affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the court in its 

ruling from the bench. 

The insurance policy provided that loss of two feet, which 

would result in payment of the principal sum of the policy, meant 

"actual severance through or above the wrist or ankle joint." 

* 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: 87-2142 Document: 010110024640 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 1 
Plainly, Smith's loss of use of his feet, which were not severed 

above the ankle joint, is not covered by this language. See 

Traverse v. World Service Life Ins. Co., 436 F. Supp. 810, 812 

(W.D. Okla. 1977). And . though the language of the insurance 

certificate issued to Smith by the employer would control if in 

conflict with the policy, see Martin v. Oklahoma Farmers Union, 

622 P.2d 1078, 1080 (Okla. 1981), there is no conflict here. The 

certificate states that the principal sum is paid for "[l]oss of· 

two feet," but that appears in a section titled "Life, Accidental 

Death and Dismemberment Insurance." 

Att. A at 31 (emphasis added). 

Appellant's Brief-in-Chief 

The certificate also did not 

explicitly define "[l]oss of two feet"; it referenced the policy 

for special conditions or limitations, and nothing in the 

certificate is contrary to the policy's statement that loss of two 

feet means "actual severance." Id. at 32. 

Because the policy provided no coverage for Smith's loss, the 

insurer's denial of coverage could not be in bad faith. The 

district court correctly granted summary judgment for the insurer 

on this claim as well. 

AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2142 Document: 010110024640 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 2