Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03438/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03438-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3438

___________

John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.; *

Winegardner & Hammons, Inc.; *

John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P.; *

John Q. Hammons Hotels Two, L.P., *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Factory Mutual Insurance Company; * District Court for the Western

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance * District of Missouri.

Company, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

_________________ *

*

Complex Insurance Claims Litigation *

Association, *

*

Amicus on Behalf *

of Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2004

Filed: September 20, 2004 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 03-3438 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812851 
*

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-

John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. and other Hammons hotel entities (collectively

Hammons) brought this diversity action seeking recovery for water intrusion-related

damages to three of its hotels under three property insurance policies issued by

Factory Mutual Insurance Company and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance

Company. The district court*

 granted summary judgment to the insurance companies,

concluding Hammons knew of the water damage in each of the hotels long before the

policies took effect and failed to provide timely notice to the insurers. Hammons

appeals. Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, Ostrander v. Duggan,

341 F.3d 745, 748 (8th Cir. 2003), we affirm. 

Hammons first contends it did not know it had sustained losses before the

insurance policies became effective. The district court properly granted summary

judgment to the insurers because it is undisputed that Hammons knew of appreciable

water-related damages before the insurance coverage began. United Capitol Ins. Co.

v. Hoodco, Inc., 974 S.W.2d 572, 574-75 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (insurer cannot insure

against loss that is known or apparent to insured); Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins.

v. Superior Court, 798 P.2d 1230, 1244 n.7 (Cal. 1990). Indeed, Hammons

unsuccessfully attempted to stop the water intrusion long before Hammons obtained

the policies in this case. The district court properly rejected the opinion affidavits

from Hammons’s paid consultant stating Hammons could not have known of the

damages before the policies went into effect because the affidavits contradict

undisputed earlier sworn testimony of Hammons’s employees. Willard v. BIC Corp.,

788 F. Supp. 1059, 1065 (W.D. Mo. 1991). The fact that Hammons may not have

known the precise cause of the water damage is not relevant because Hammons knew

of the loss. Prudential LMI, 798 P.2d at 1238. Further, given that Hammon knew of

the loss before the contract period and the loss continued into the contract period, the

continuous damage is not covered by the insurance contracts in this case. In other

Appellate Case: 03-3438 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812851 
-3-

words, as the district court held, the claims were not fortuitous and thus not covered

under the policies. Also, the district court correctly applied the manifestation trigger

rule rather than the continuous trigger rule. Id. at 1246-47.

Whether discussed or not, we have carefully considered all of Hammons’s

arguments and having done so, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary

judgment to the insurers.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3438 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812851