Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02787/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02787-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Granite State Insurance Company
Appellee
Patrons Mutual Insurance Association
Appellee
Becky Rich
Appellant

Document Text:

.I' "' I 

' 

FIL E.D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.eel St.ates Court of Appeals 

Tenth eire1.1it 

JUN 111990 

GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY and 

PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

BECKY RICH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-2787 

) (D.C. No. 87-2368-S) 

) ( D. Kan. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District 

District Court f o r the District of 

designation. 

Judge, United States 

Colorado, sitting by 

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 case 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. 

3 6. 3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2787 Document: 010110036161 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 1 
I -

This is a subrogation action. The plaintiff insurance 

companies seek recovery of amounts paid to their respective 

insureds as a result of an explosion and fire in an apartment 

leased to defendant. It is undisputed that the explosion and 

resulting fire occurred while a friend of defendant's (Paul 

Schanzmeyer) was using gasoline to strip paint from certain walls 

of the apartment. The apparent source of ignition was the pilot 

light of a nearby gas cooking stove. 

By an unopposed motion for summary judgment, filed March 1, 

1988, plaintiffs sought determination of defendant's liability. 

On June 21, 1988, the district court concluded that there were no 

genuine issues of material fact and that plaintiffs were entitled 

to judgment. Subsequently, judgment was entered in favor of both 

plaintiffs. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, defendant challenges only the district court's 

determination of liability and not the amount awarded. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court but on an 

alternative ground. 

Under Rule 206 of the District of Kansas, a response in 

opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be filed within 

twenty days of the motion. Unless specifically controverted by 

the statement of the opposing party, all material facts set forth 

in the statement of the moving p~rty shall be deemed as admitted 

for the purpose of summary judgment. The rule further provides 

that in the absence of a timely response, "the motion will be 

considered and decided as an uncontested motion, and ordinarily 

will be granted without further notice." 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2787 Document: 010110036161 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 2 
• 

Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment would 

have been proper under Rule 206. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2787 Document: 010110036161 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 3