D A 1 0

- 0 2 2 6



### I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F M O N T A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 2 7 0

P A R K P L A C E A P A R T M E N T S

, L

. L

. C

. ,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l a n t

,

v

.

F A R M E R S U

N I O N M U T U A L I N S U R A N C E

C O M P A N Y

, W I L L I

A M F

. W I L H E L M

, a n d

M O N T A N A F A R M E R S U N I O N

I N S U R A N C E A G E N C Y

, I N C

.

D e f e n d a n t s a n d A

p p e l l e e s

,

W I L L I A M F

. W I L H E L M

,

T h i r d

- P a r t y P l a i n t i f

f a n d

A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

W H I T E F I S H I

N S U R A N C E A G E N C Y

, I N C

. , A M o n t a n a C o r

p o r a t i o n

,

T h i r d

- P a r t y D e f

e n d a n t

a n d A p p e l l e e

.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f F l a t h e a d

, C a

u s e N o

. D V 0 9

- 3 7 9

H o n o r a b l e S t e w a r

t E

. S t a d l e r

, P r e s i d i

n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

T e r r y N

. T r i e w e i l e r ; T

r i e w e i l e r L a w F i

r m ; W h i t e f i s h

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e s :

S t e v e n J

. F i

t z p a t r i c k

, W i l l i a m J

. G r e g o i r e ; S m i t h

, W a l s h

, C l a r

k e &

G r e g o i r e

, P L L P ; G r e a t F a l l s

, M o n t a n a ( W i l l i a m F

. W i l h e l m ) December 21 20102 J a m e s R

. H a l

v e r s o n ; H a l

v e r s o n & G i l

b e r t

, P

. C

. ; B i l l i

n g s

, M o n t a n a ( M o n t a

n a F a r m e r s U n i o n I n s u r a n c e A g e n c y

, I n c

. )

G u y W

. R o g e r s

, M a t t h e w I

. T o u r t l o t t e ; B r o w n L a w F i

r m

, P

. C

. ;

B i l l i n g s

, M o n t a n a ( W h i

t e f i s h I n s u r a n c e A g e n c y

, I n c

. )

D o u g l a s J

. W o l d ; W o l d L a w F i r m

, P

. C

. ; P o l s o n

, M o n t a n a ( F a r m e r s U n i o n M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y )

F o r A m i c u s C u r i a e :

A m y E d d y ; B o t t o m l

y & E d d y

, P L L P ; K a l i s p e l l

, M o n t a n a ( M o n t a n a T

r i a l L a w y e r s A s s o c i a t i o n )

L a w r e n c e A

. A n d e r s o n ; A t t o r n e y a t L a w ; G r e a t F a l l s

, M o n t a n a ( M o n t a n a T

r i a l L a w y e r s A s s o c i a t i o n )

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : O c t o b e r 1 3

, 2 0 1 0

D e c i d e d : D e c e m b e r 2 1

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k3

W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 P l a i n t i f

f a n d A p p e l l a n t P a r k P l a c e A

p a r t m e n t s

, L L C ( “ P P A ” ) a p p e a l s f r o m t h e

o r d e r o f F l a t h e a

d C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t g

r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f F a r m e r s

U n i o n M u t

u a l I n s u r a n c e C o m

p a n y ( F U M I C ) a n d i t s f o r m e r a g e n t B u d W i l h e l m

( W i l h e l m )

, a n d d e n y i n g P P A ’ s c r o s s

- m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

. P P A s u e d F U M I C

,

W i l h e l m

, a n d M o n

t a n a F a r m e r s U

n i o n I n s u r a n c e A g

e n c y ( M F U ) w

h e n F U M I C d e n i e d

c o v e r a g e o n a c l a i m m a d e b y P P A

. T h i s c a s e w a s c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h a t h i r d

- p a r t y c l a i m

b y W i l h e l m a g

a i n s t W h i t e f i s h I n s u r a n c e A g

e n c y

, I n c

. , b u t t h a

t c l a i m i s n o t a s u b

j e c t o f

this appeal. We reverse.

¶ 2 W e c o n s i d e r t h e f

o l l o w i n g i s s u e o n a

p p e a l :

¶ 3 W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g s u m m a r

y j u d g m e n t i n f

a v o r o f

FUMIC and Wilhelm, and in denying PPA’s cross

- motion for summary judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 4 I n 2 0 0 1

, P P A

, t h r

o u g h i t s s o l e o w

n e r

, W h i t e f i s h a t t o r n e y W i l l i a m H i l e m a n

, b e g a n

i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e p u r c h a s e o f a 2 4

- u n i t a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x a t 6 0 1 P a r k A v

e n u e i n

W h i t e f i s h

. H i l e m a n h a d t h e p r o p e r t y a p p r a i s e d

, a n d t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e c o m p l e x w a s

e s t i m a t e d t o b e $ 7 5 0

, 0 0 0

. T h e c o m p l e x c o n s i s t s o f a l o n g

, r e c t a n g u l a r a p a r t m e n t

b u i l d i n g

, a c a r

p o r t r u n n i n g a l o n g t h e l e n g

t h o f t h e b u i l d i n g

, a n d a s m a l l l a u n d r y a n d

s t o r a g e b u i l d i n g o n t h e o p p o s i t e s i d e o f t h e c a r p o r t

. T h e $ 7 5 0

, 0 0 0 e s t i m a t e i n c l u d e d a

v a l u e o f $ 4 6

, 2 0 0 f

o r t h e c a r

p o r t

. I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p u r c h a s e

, H i l e m a n c o n t a c t e d

W i l h e l m

, w

h o m h e h a d k

n o w n f o r a d e c a d e a n d f

r o m w h o m h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y p u r c h a s e d

i n s u r a n c e

. H i l e m a n r e q u e s t e d f u l l c a s u a l t y a n d l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e f o r t h e p r o p e r t y

, w h i c h4

he described as FUMIC’s s t a n d a r d “ b u s i n e s s p a c k ” o f i n s u r a n c e p r o d u c t s f o r c o m m e r c i a l

p r o p e r t y o w n e r s

. T h e p o l i c y l i m i t w a s s e t a t t h e a p p r a i s e d v a l u e o f $750,000

. Wilhelm

filled out the application for insurance form o n H i l e m a n ’ s b e h a l f

, a n d l i s t e d t h e t w o

b u i l d i n g s ( t h e 2 4

- u n i t a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g

, a n d t h e l a u n d r y b u i l d i n g

) o n t h e

“ D eclarations” page. When shown the completed application, Hileman asked Wilhelm

what the “second” building (meaning the laundry building) was. Wilhelm informed

H i l e m a n t h a

t l i s t i n g t h e l a

u n d r y b u i l d i n g w a s n o t a n e c e s s a r y s t e p

, a s “ a l l b u i l d i n g s a n d

s t r u c t u r e s o n t h e p r o p e r t y w e r e c o v e r e d

, ” b u t t h a

t F U M I C “ l i k e d t o s e e t h o s e b u i l d i n g s t o

w h i c h p e o p l e w e r e c o m

i n g a n d g o i n g s p e c i f

i c a l l y i d e n t i f

i e d

. ” W i t h H i l e m a n ’ s a p p r o v a l

,

W i l h e l m s u b m i t t e d t

h e a p p l i c a t i o n

, b o t h m e n b e l i e v i n g t h a t c o v e r a g e h a d b e e

n o b t a i n e d

f o r t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r t y

. H i l e m a n s i g n e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n on PPA’s behalf on May 1, 2001,

the closing date for the purchase of the complex.

¶ 5 T h e p o l i c y w a s r e n e w a b l e a n n u a l l y

, a n d P P A r e n e w e d i t s p o l i c y e a c h y e a r w i t h o u t

a n y f u r t h e r i n q u i r y a s t o t h e a m o u n t o r s c o p e o f c o v e r a g e

. I n 2 0 0 5

, W i l h e l m r e t i r e d

, a n d

his practice was assumed by Monte Sparby. PPA continued to renew through Sparby.

Also in 2005, a reference to “BOP

- 54” was inserted into the p olicy. BOP

- 54

, an

“amendatory endorsement

, ” w a s i n c l u d e d i n a l o n g l i s t o f o t h e r s u c h e n d o r s e m e n t s o n t h e

r e n e w a l d e c l a r a t i o n

. B O P

- 5 4 s t a t e d t h a t t h e p o l i c y

, a s m o d i f

i e d b y t h e e n d o r s e m e n t

,

c o v e r e d o n l y t

h o s e b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r

u c t u r e s s e p a r a

t e l y l i s t e d o n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g e f o r

w h i c h a l i m

i t o f c o v e r a g e wa s shown.

¶ 6 O n F e b r

u a r y 1 0

, 2 0 0 8

, h e a v

y s n o w f e l l t h r o u g h o u t t h e W h i t e f i s h a r e a

. B u t w

h i l e

t h e c o n d i t i o n s w e r e w o n d e r f u l f o r the ski hill, they dealt a fatal blow to PPA ’ s c a r p o r t

,5

w h i c h c o l l a

p s e d u n d e r a m a s s i v e a c c u m

u l a t i o n o f s n o w a n d i c e

, b u r y i n g n u m e r o u s

v e h i c l e s

. Hileman submitted a claim under P P A ’ s p o l i c y f o r t h e d a m a g

e s

, a n d F U M I C

c l a i m s a d j u s t e r R i a l G

u n l i k s o n r e s p o n d e d t

h a t t h e l o s s w a s c o v

e r e d

. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f

t e r

,

h o w e v e r

, G u n l i k s o n c o n

t a c t e d H i l e m a n t o i n f

o r m h i m t h a t t h e c a r

p o r t w a s i n f

a c t n o t

c o v e r e d b y t h e p o l i c y

. G

u n l i k s o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h a n g e i n p o l i c y d u e t o t h e a

d o p t i o n o f

B O P

- 54 had excluded the carport as of 2005

.

¶ 7 O n A

p r i l 4

, 2 0 0 8

, a f

t e r s p e a k i n g w i t h G

u n l i k s o n

, H i l e m a n w

r o t e t o F U M I C a n d

d e m a n d e d p a y

m e n t o n t h e c l a i m o r a w r i t t e n e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y c o v e r a g e w a s b e i n g

denied. Four days later, Hileman received a letter in response from Thomas E. Barker,

Assistant Vice President of FUMIC’s claims department. Barker reiterated Gun l i k s o n ’ s

a s s e r t i o n s

, e x

p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e c a r

p o r t w a s n o t l i s t e d s e p a r a t e l y o n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g

e

,

a n d d u e t o BOP

- 54’s exclusion of “buildings for which no limi t of insurance is shown in

the D eclarations,” the carport had not been covered since 2005. H a v i ng never heard of

the endorsement, H i l e m a n c o n t a c t e d S p a r b y a n d m e t w i t h h i m a t S p a r b y ’ s o f f i c e

, w h e r e

t h e f i l e f o r P P A w a s k e p t

. B O P

- 5 4 w a s n o t i n t h e f i l e d e d i c a t e d t o P P A

, n o r w a s a n y

n o t i c e t h a t t h e c o v

e r a g e f o r P P A w a s b e i n g r e d u c e d t o e x c l u d e t h e c a r p o r t

. T h e p a r

t i e s

d i s p u t e w h e t h e r n o t i c e o f B O P

- 5 4 w a s e v e r p r o v i d e d t o H i l e m a n o r S p a r b y b e s i d e s i t s

i n c o r p o r a t i o n b y r e f

e r e n c e o n t

h e d e c l a r a t i o n r e

n e w a l

. S p a r

b y a n d W i l h e l m a t t e s t t h a t i t

w a s t h e i r p r a c t i c e t o k e e p c o p i e s o f a n y o f f i c i a l c o m m

u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n F U M I C a n d

i n s u r e d s

, w

h i c h w o u l d h a v

e i n c l u d e d c h a

n g e s t o t h e p o l i c i e s

, a n d F U M I C e m p l o y e e s

t e s t i f y t h a t i t w a s t h e i r p r a c t i c e t o s e n d o u t c o p i e s o f a n y n e w e n d o r s e m e n t s t o t h e i n s u r e d6

parties

. No parties have specific records or memories of co rrespondence concerning

BOP

- 54.

¶ 8 O n N o v

e m b e r 1 3

, 2 0 0 8

, P P A f

i l e d s u i t i n C a s c a d e C o u n t y

, n a m i n g F U M I C a n d

W i l h e l m a s d e f

e n d a n t s

. F U M I C m o v

e d t o c h a n g e v e n u e t o F l a

t h e a d C o u n t y b a s e d o n t

h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o f w i t n e s s e s

, n o t a b l y W i l h e l m

, w

h o w a s s u f

f e r i n g f r o m v arious health

problems. The Cascade County District Court granted FUMIC’s motion on Feb r uary 26,

2 0 0 9

, o v e r P P A ’ s o b

j e c t i o n

, a n d t

h e F l a t h e a d C o u n

t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s s u m e d j u r i s d i c t i o n

.

A f t e r s e v e r a l m o n t h s o f p r e

- t r i a l a c t i v i t y

, F U M I C m o v e d f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

. I t

a r g u e d t h a t t

h e p o l i c y l i s t e d o n l y t h e a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g a n d l a u n d r y b u i l d i n g o n t h e

D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g

e a s i n s u r e d p r e m

i s e s a n d t h a t t h e c a r

p o r t w a s t h e r e f

o r e n e v e r c o v e r e d

.

W i l h e l m a l s o m o v

e d f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, a r g u i n g t h a t h e w a s n o l o n g e r w o r k i n g a t

the agency at the time the current policy was renewed and was thus not a proper party to

the suit, and that PPA’s request for full coverage was not sufficiently specific to give rise

to a duty on his part to insure the carport.

¶ 9 PPA filed a c ross

- m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

. I n i t s b r i e f o p p o s i n g F U M I C ’ s

m o t i o n a n d i n s u p p o r t o f i t s o w n

, P P A a r g

u e d t h a t t h e p l a i n l a n g

u a g e o f t h e p o l i c y

c o v e r e d a l l b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r u c t u r e s a t t h e a d d r e s s l i s t e d o n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g e

. A t

b e s t

, P P A m a i n t a i n e d

, the policy contained contradictory definitions of the “insured

p r e m i s e s

, ” c r e a t i n g a n a m

b i g u i t y w h i c h m u s t b e c o n s t r

u e d i n f a v o r o f c o v e r a g e

. P P A

a l s o s o u g h t s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t W i l h e l m

, c o n t e n d i n g t h a t i f t h e c a r p o r t w a s n o t

covered, then Wilhelm ’ s n e g l i g e n t f a i l u r e t o p r

o c u r e c o v e r a g e s u b j e c t e d h i m a n d F U M I C7

to liability . After the briefing of these motions, PPA amended its complaint to add MFU

as a party, alleging that MFU was vicariously liable for Wilhelm’s negligence.

¶ 1 0 Argument was heard on a ll of the above motions on December 10, 2009. Several

m o n t h s l a t e r

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r g

r a n t i n g t h e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n s f

o r

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a n d d i s m i s s i n g a l l o f PPA’s claims

. The District Court held that the

“language of the policy was clear and unambiguous and provided for coverage of the

property described i n the D e c l a r a t i o n s

, ” a n d b e c a u s e t h e c a r p o r t w a s n o t l i s t e d

, i t w a s n o t

c o v e r e d

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t also held that Wilhelm had no duty to provide coverage for

the carport absent a specific request that the carport be insured, and that PPA’s request

for full coverage was “not sufficiently specific t o g i v e r i s e t o a d u t y

. ” T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

d i d n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e o f t h e a m e n d a t o r y e n d o r s e m e n t

, a s i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t n o c o v

e r a g e

h a d e v e r existed on the carport . The District Court also did not reach the issue of whether

FUMIC or MFU w a s l i a b l e f o r W i l h e l m ’ s n e g

l i g e n c e a s i t d i d n o t f

i n d W i l h e l m

n e g l i g e n t

. P P A t i m e l y a p p e a l e d

.

S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W

¶ 1 1 W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t d e

n o v o

. S t a t e v

. B u t t e

- S

i l v e r B o w C o u n t y

, 2 0 0 9 M T 4 1 4

, ¶ 1 7

, 3 5 3 M o n t

. 4 9 7

, 2 2 0 P

. 3 d

1 1 1 5

. A p p l y i n g t h e c r i t e r i a c o n

t a i n e d i n M

. R

. C i v

. P

. 5 6

, w e d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e

m o v i n g p a r t y h a s e s t a b l i s h e d b o t h t h e a b s e n c e o f a g

e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t a n d

e n t i t l e m e n t t o j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w

. G o e t t e l v

. E s t a t e o f B a l l a r d

, 2 0 1 0 M T 1 4 0

,

¶ 1 0

, 3 5 6 M o n t

. 5 2 7

, 2 3 4 P

. 3 d 9 9

.8

¶ 1 2 T h e i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n o f a n i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w

. C u s e n b a r y v

. U

. S

.

F i d

. & G u a r

. C o

. , 2 0 0 1 M T 2 6 1

, ¶ 9

, 3 0 7 M o n t

. 2 3 8

, 3 7 P

. 3 d 6 7 ( c i t i n g B a b c o c k v

.

F a r m e r s I n s

. E x c h

. , 2 0 0 0 M T 1 1 4

, ¶ 5

, 2 9 9 M o n t

. 4 0 7

, 9 9 9 P

. 2 d 3 4 7 )

. W h e n a c o u r

t

r e v i e w s a n i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y

, i t i s b o u n d t o i n t e r p r e t i t s t e r m s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r u s u a l

,

c o m m o n s e n s e m e a n i n g a s v i e w e d f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v

e o f a r e a s o n a b l e c o n s u m e r o f

i n s u r a n c e p r o d u c t s

. C

o u n t e r p o i n t

, I n c

. v

. E s s e x I n s

. C o

. , 1 9 9 8 M T 2 5 1

, ¶ 1 3

, 2 9 1 M o n t

.

1 8 9

, 9 6 7 P

. 2 d 3 9 3

. E x c l u s i o n s f r o m c o v e r a g e a r e t o b e n a r r

o w l y a n d s t r i c t l y c o n s t r

u e d

b e c a u s e t h e y a r e c o n

t r a r y t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l p r

o t e c t i v e p u r p o s e o f a n i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y

.

S w a n k E n t e r s

. , I n c

. v

. A l l P u r

p o s e S e r v s

. , L t d

. , 2007 MT 57, ¶ 2 7, 336 Mont. 197, 154

P.3d 52.

¶ 1 3 W h e n a n i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s a m b i g u o u s

, i t i s t o b e i n t e r

p r e t e d m o s t s t r o n g

l y i n

f a v o r o f t h e i n s u r e d a n d a n y d o u b t s a s t o c o v e r a g e a r e t o b e r e s o l v

e d i n f a v o r o f

e x t e n d i n g c o v

e r a g e f o r t h e i n s u r e d

. Mitchell v. State Farm Ins. Co. , 2003 MT 102, ¶ 2 6

,

3 1 5 M o n t

. 2 8 1

, 6 8 P

. 3 d 7 0 3

. A

n a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s w

h e r e t h e i n s u r a n c e c o n

t r a c t

, t a k e n a s

a w h o l e

, i s r e a s o n a b l y s u b

j e c t t o t w o d i f

f e r e n t i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n s

. Id

.

DISCUSSION

¶ 1 4 T h e p a r t i e s a g r e e o n t h e m a t e r i a l f a c t s

, a n d t h u s t h e i n s t a n t c a s e p r e s e n t s o n l y

q u e s t i o n s o f l a w

. A t i s s u e i s whether P P A ’ s i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i n c l u d e d c o v e r a g e f o r t h e

c a r p o r t

, a n d i f n o t

, w

h e t h e r W i l h e l m w a s n e g

l i g e n t i n n o t p r

o c u r i n g s u c h c o v

e r a g e

. I f t h e

policy did include coverage for the carport, of course, we will not reach the issue of

Wilhelm’s negligence

. T h u s

, w e m u s t d e t e r m i n e w

h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t w a s c o r r e c t

. W e f i r s t n o t e t h a t b e c a u s e F U M I C9

c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c o v e r a g e w a s n o t a f

f e c t e d b y t h e a m e n d a t o r y e n d o r s e m e n t ( B O P

- 5 4 )

,

w e w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e c o n t r a c t a s u n m o d i f i e d b y t h e e n d o r s e m e n t

, a n d w i l l

not inquire into whether the carport would have been covered but for modifications to

coverage made by the endorsement.

¶ 1 5 F U M I C ’ s f

u n d a m e n t a l a r g

u m e n t i s t h a t o n l y b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r u c t u r e s l i s t e d o n t

h e

D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g

e a r e c o v e r e d b y t h e p o l i c y

, a n d b e c a u s e t h e carport is not listed, it is not

covered

. FUMIC poi nts to language in the Businesso w n e r ’ s C o v

e r a g e F o r m

, t h e

o p e r a t i v e p o l i c y d o c u m e n t

, i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s c o n t e n t i o n

. T h e F o r m p r o v

i d e s

,

C o v e r e d P r o p e r t y

. C o v e r e d p r o p e r t y i n c l u d e s B u i l d i n g s a s d e s c r i b e d

u n d e r P a r a g

r a p h a

. b e l o w

. . . a

. B u i l d i n g s , m e a n i n g t

h e b u i l d i n g s a n d

s t r u c t u r e s a t t h e p r e m i s e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s

, i n c l u d i n g : ( 1 ) C o m p l e t e d a d d i t i o n s ; ( 2 ) F i x t u r e s

, i n c l u d i n g o u t d o o r f i x t u r e s ; ( 3 ) P e r m a n e n t l y i n s t a l l e d : ( a ) M a c h i n e r y ; a n d (b) Equipment; (4) Your

personal property in apartments, rooms or common areas furnished by you

a s l a n d l o r d ;

. . . . ” [ E m

p h a s i s a d d e d

. ] 1

F U M I C t i e s t h i s d e f

i n i t i o n t o t

h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g

e

, w h i c h c o n t a i n s t h e f

o l l o w i n g

s e c t i o n :

I N S U R E D P R E M I S E S :

L O C # B L D G # A D D R E S S I F D I F F E R E N T F R O M A B O V E

B U S I N E S S D E S C R I P T I O N : A P A R T M E N T

- 2 4 U N I T S

1 1 6 0 1 P A R K A V E N U E

W H I T E F I S H M T 5 9 9 3 7

BUSINESS DESCRIPTION: LAUNDRY ROOM & S T O R A G E

1 2 6 0 1 P A R K A V E N U E

W H I T E F I S H M T 5 9 9 3 7

1 T h e l a n g u a g e i n t h e 2 0 0 1 f

o r m d i f f e r s s l i g h t l y f r o m t h e l a n g

u a g e i n t h e 2 0 0 7

- 0 8 f

o r m

. T h e

l a n g u a g e r e p r i

n t e d a b o v e i s f r o m t h e 2 0 0 7

- 0 8 f

o r m

. N e i t h e r p a r t y a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i f

f e r e n c e i n

l a n g u a g e i s m a t e r i a l

.1 0

¶ 1 6 A s t h e c a r

p o r t i s n o t l i s t e d u n d e r t h e “ i n s u r e d p r e m

i s e s ” s e c t i o n i n t

h e

D e c l a r a t i o n s

, F U M I C m a i n t a i n s

, i t i s n o t c o v e r e d b y t h e p o l i c y

, w

h i c h i s l i m

i t e d t o “ t h e

b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r

u c t u r e s a t t h e p r e m

i s e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s

. ” T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t c o n c

u r r e d w i t h t

h i s a r g u m e n t

. I n i t s o p i n i o n a c c o m

p a n y i n g t h e g

r a n t o f F U M I C ’ s

m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, t

h e l o w e r c o u r

t r e a s o n e d :

T h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t a t i s s u e h e r e i s c l e a r a n d

u n a m b i g u o u s

. T h e B u s i n e s s O w n e r ’ s C o v

e r a g e F o r m

, w

h i c h i s t h e b a s i c

p o l i c y f o r m

, p r o v

i d e s t h a t p r

o p e r t y

, w h e t h e r i t i s p e r s o n a

l p r o p e r t y o r a

b u i l d i n g

, i s c o v

e r e d i f i t i s a t t h e p r e m

i s e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s

. T h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g

e d e s c r i b e s t h e p r o p e r

t y i n s u r e d a s t w o b u i l d i n g s

, t h e

2 4 u n i t a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g a n d a b u i l d i n g c o n t a i n i n g l a u n d r y f

a c i l i t i e s a n d

s t o r a g e s p a c e

. T h e r e i s n o m e n t i o n o f t h e c a r p o r t

. . . .

¶ 1 7 T h e l a c k o f c o v

e r a g e

, a r g

u e s F U M I C

, i s c o n f

i r m e d b y t h e f

a c t t h a t n o l i m i t o f

i n s u r a n c e i s l i s t e d f

o r t h e c a r p o r t

. F U M I C o b s e r v

e s t h a t t h e B u s i n e s s o w

n e r ’ s C o v

e r a g e

F o r m p r o v

i d e s t h a t c o v

e r e d p r o p e r t y o n l y i n c l u d e s p r o p e r t y “ f o r w h i c h a L i m i t o f

I n s u r a n c e i s s h o w

n i n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s

. . . . ” 2 A s n o l i m i t o f i n s u r a n c e i s s e p a r a t e l y

l i s t e d f o r t h e c a r

p o r t

, F U M I C a s s e r t s

, t h e c a r p o r t i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t

h e p o l i c y

. T h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t a

l s o f o u n d t h i s a r g

u m e n t c o n v

i n c i n g

. I t h e l d

, “ [ a ] d d i t i o n a l l y

, t h e p o l i c y

p r o v i d e s f o r l i m i t s o f c o v

e r a g e f o r t h e a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g a n d t h e l a u n d r y b u i l d i n g

, b u t

n o t t h e c a r

p o r t

. I f t h e c a r

p o r t w a s c o v

e r e d b e c a u s e i t i s a p a r t o f t h e p r e m i s e s a t 6 0 1 P a r k

A v e n u e

, t h e n t h e r e w o u l d b e a l i m

i t a t i o n o f c o v

e r a g e f o r i t

. ”

¶ 1 8 P P A r e f

u t e s b o t h o f t h e s e a r g

u m e n t s

. I

t c o n t e n d s t h a

t t h e i n s u r e d p r e m

i s e s a r e

d e f i n e d a s t h e p r o p e r

t y a d d r e s s

, a n d t h a

t i n a n y c a s e

, t h e l i m

i t o f i n s u r a n c e f

o r t h e

2 This language is from the 2001 form; the 2007

- 0 8 f o r m p r o v i d e s t h a t “Covered Property

includes Buildings . . . Business Personal Property . . . or both, depending on whether a Limit of

Ins u r a n c e i s s h o w n i

n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s f

o r t h a t t y p e o f p r o p e r

t y

. ”1 1

a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g i n c l u d e d t h e c a r p o r t

. A t b e s t

, P P A c o n t e

n d s t h e p o l i c y i s a m

b i g u o u s

,

a n d i t i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e a m b i g u i t i e s m u s t b e r e s o l v

e d i n f a v o r o f g r e a t e r

c o v e r a g e

, n o t l e s s e r c o v

e r a g e

.

¶ 1 9 W e a g r e e w i t h P P A t h a t w h e t h e r t h e c a r p o r t i s c o v e r e d b y t h e p o l i c y i s a t b e s t

a m b i g u o u s

, a n d t h a t t h i s a m

b i g u i t y e n t i t l e s P P A t o a n e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t i n i t s f a v o r

.

B a s e d o n t h e r e a s o n i n g s e t o u t b e l o w

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c a r p o r t w a s c o v e r e d b y t h e

p o l i c y

, a s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e purchase of the policy, as a matter o f law. We will thus not

reach the issue of Wilhelm’s negligence or of FUMIC or MFU’s respons ibility for

Wilhelm’s actions.

¶ 2 0 Our initial inquiry concerns whether the carport is logically included in the

definition of the insured premises. T he definition of “covered property” in the

Businessowners’ Coverage Form includes “buildings, meaning the buildings and

structures at the premises d escribed in the Declarations

. . . . ” T h e l o g i c b e h i n d F U M I C ’ s

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s p h r a s e d o e s n o t s t a n d u p t o s c r u t i n y

. F U M I C c o n t e n d s

, i n e s s e n c e

,

t h a t t h e p h r a s e m e a n s t h a t c o v e r a g e i s l i m i t e d t o t h e buildings and structures d e s c r i b e d i n

t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s

, a s o p p o s e d t o b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r u c t u r e s a t t

h e p r e m i s e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e

D e c l a r a t i o n s

. F U M I C ’s interpretation skips over the words “ a t t h e p r e m i s e s ” i n t h e

d e f i n i t i o n o f c o v

e r e d p r o p e r t y

, a n d w o u l d r e n d e r t h e m m e a n i n g l e s s

. I t i s a b a s i c r

u l e o f

c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t w e m u s t

, i f a t a l l p o s s i b l e

, i n t e r p r e t a c o n t r a c t s o a s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o

e v e r y p a r t o f t h e c o n t r a c t

. Millt o w n A d d i t i o n H o m e o w n e r ’ s A s s ’ n v

. G e e

r y , 2000 MT

341, ¶ 1 1 , 303 Mont. 195, 15 P.3d 458 ( citing § 1

- 4

- 101, MCA )

. FUMIC’s interpretation

requires that the words “described in the Declarations” refer only to t h e “ b u i l d i n g s a n d1 2

structures

, ” and not “the premi ses.” PPA’s interpretation of the phrase

— t h a t c o v e r a g e

e x t e n d s t o a

l l b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r

u c t u r e s w

h i c h a r e a t t h e p r e m

i s e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e

D e c l a r a t i o n s

— strikes us as the more re a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

. If FUMIC’s

i nterpretation is correct, it is certainly not unambiguously so.

¶ 2 1 The Declarations provide no clarity on the matter . On the first page, the

subsection entitled “insured premises” contains data fields for “ LOC #” (location

number) and “ BLDG # ” ( b u i l d i n g n u m b e r )

, a n d l i s t s t w o b u i l d i n g s : ( 1 ) t h e a p a r t m e n t

b u i l d i n g a t 6 0 1 P a r k A v e n u e and (2) the laundry /storage building at 601 Park Avenue

.

T he section titled “insured premises” does not list a street a d d r e s s a s “ t h e p r e m i s e s

, ”

i n s t e a d o n l y l i s t i n g t h e t w o b u i l d i n g s

, e a c h w i t h s e p a r a t e l y s t a t e d ( a l t h o u g h i d e n t i c a l )

a d d r e s s e s . This s e e m s t o l e n d c r e d e n c e t o F U M I C ’ s i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n

. O n p a g

e t h r e e o f t

h e

same document, however, the following language appears: “ P R E M I S E S : A S P E R L O C A T I O N

A D D R E S S ( S ) SHOWN ON THE DECLAR ATION

. ” P P A a d v

a n c e s t h i s d e f

i n i t i o n o f t h e

p r e m i s e s a s t h e o p e r a t i v

e o n e

. Y e t i t is located at the end of the “forms/endorsements

applicable” section, and it is unclear why insured premises would be defined anywhere

besides the “ i n s u r e d p r e m i s e s ” s e c t i o n

. M o r e o v e r

, i t i s u n c l e a r w

h e t h e r t h e d e f

i n i t i o n i s

m e a n t t o apply to the entire policy, or only to endorsement “BO211

— Limit. Cov. to

Desg. Prem. ” listed immediately above it

. I n s u m

, i t i s u n c l e a r w h a t e x a c t l y t

h e

“ p r e m i s e s : a s p e r l o c a

t i o n a d d r e s s ” i s m e a n t t o s i g n i f y

, e s p e c i a l l y a s i t i s c o m m o n

p r a c t i c e t o d e f

i n e t h e s c o p e o f c o v

e r a g e s i m p l y b y s t a t i n g t h e a d d r e s s o f t h e p r e m i s e s

.

¶ 2 2 I t i s clear, however, that t h e “ i n s u r e d p r e m

i s e s ” c a n n o t b e l i m

i t e d o n l y to the

buildings listed i n t h e “ i n s u r e d p r e m i s e s ” s e c t i o n

, a s c o v

e r a g e v e r y c l e a r l y e x t e n d s1 3

beyond the buildings specifically listed in this section

— f o r e x a m p l e

, t h e p o l i c y c o v

e r s

m a c h i n e r y

, e q u i p m e n t

, a n d o u t d o o r f i x t u r e s o n t h e p r o p e r t y

, d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h o s e

i t e m s a r e n o t l i s t e d o n t

h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g

e a n d d o n o t h a v

e a s e p a r a t e l i m

i t o f i n s u r a n c e

l i s t e d

. This is underscored by the fact that only buildings would be specifically listed in

the Declaration’s “insured premises” section, as the section asks for “BLDG #”

. A s

F U MIC’s policies are obviously not necessarily limited to buil dings alone , the “insured

premises” section cannot be interpreted to set out the full scope of coverage.

¶ 2 3 If the “ premises ” are rightly considered to be “ as per location address ,” as PPA

asserts , then the carport would be covered because the Businessowner’s Policy states that

coverage includes “buildings and structures at the premises

. ” B ut t he location of this

definition

— not in the “insured premises” section, and arguably only intended to describe

a specific endorsement

— severely weakens this interpretation

.

¶ 2 4 W h i l e w e n e e d o n l y c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p o l i c y i s a m b i g u o u s t o d e c i d e t h e r e s o l u t i o n

o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e

, w e n o t e t h a t t h e m o s t r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

, i n o u r v i e w

, i s t h a t

t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e p o l i c y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g i s m e a n t t o i n c l u d e t h e

carport . Thus

, the carport is “ listed ” o n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g e b y v i r t u e o f t h e l i s t i n g o f

t h e a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g

. A s a n i n i t i a l m a t t e r

, i t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t a carport is considered a

“building” at all

. The Businessowners ’ cover a g e form states that “although the words

‘ b u i l d i n g ’ a n d ‘ s t r

u c t u r e ’ a r e n o t d e f

i n e d i n t h e c o v

e r a g e f o r m

, a s t r

u c t u r e m a y b e

t h o u g h t o f a s p r o p e r t y e r e c t e d o n a n d a t t a c h e d t o l a n d t h a

t i s n o t w a l l e d a n d r o o f

e d a n d a

building is generally thought of as a walled, roofed st ructure.” T he “ i nsured p r e m i s e s ”

s e c t i o n o f t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g e o n w h i c h F U M I C p l a c e s s o m u c h w e i g h t a s k s o n l y f

o r1 4

buildings , not structures, and thus the carport’s omission from the section is not as

i m p o r t a n t a s i t i s i n F U M I C ’ s a n a l y s i s

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, W i l h e l m t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t

t a c h e d

s t r u c t u r e s s u c h a s t h e c a r

p o r t a r e o f t e n a c c o u n

t e d f o r b y s i m p l y s t a t i n g t h e b u i l d i n g s t o

w h i c h t h e y a r e a t t a c h e d o n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g

e

. W h i l e t h e c a r

p o r t h e r e w a s n o t

p h y s i c a l l y a t t a c h e d

, i t w a s l o c a t e d v e r y c l o s e t o t h e b u i l d i n g a n d i t s e e m s l o g i c a l t h a t i t

was considered an add

- on to the apartment building.

¶ 2 5 T h i s c o n c l u s i o n f i n d s s u p p o r t i n t

h e a p p r a i s a l w

h i c h a c c o m

p a n i e d t h e i n i t i a l

p u r c h a s e o f t h e c o m

p l e x

, w h i c h included a specific amount for the carport. The carpo rt ’ s

v a l u e w a s e s t i m a t e d a t $ 4 6

, 2 0 0

, w h i c h w a s t

h e n a c c o u

n t e d f o r i n t h e t o t a

l v a l u e o f t h e

a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g

, e s t i m a t e d a t $ 7 5 0

, 0 0 0

. F U M I C a s s e r t s t h a t n o c o v e r a g e e x i s t e d

b e c a u s e a l i m

i t o f i n s u r a n c e f

o r t h e c a r p o r t w a s n o t s e p a r a t e l y s t a t e d o n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s

p a g e

. B u t a s t h e a p a r

t m e n t b u i l d i n g w a s i n s u r e d f o r $ 7 5 0

, 0 0 0

, a n a m o u n

t w h i c h i n c l u d e d

t h e f u l l v a l u e o f t h e c a r

p o r t

, i t s t a n d s t o r e a s o n t h a t t h e c a r p o r t w a s c o v e r e d i n t h e

$ 7 5 0

, 0 0 0 p o l i c y p u r c h a s e d b y P P A

. T h e c a r p o r t w o u l d n o t b e s e p a r a t e l y l i s t e d o n t h e

D e c l a r a t i o n s p a g

e i f t h e a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g w a s a l r e a d y i n s u r e d f o r a n a m o u n t w

h i c h

i n c l u d e d t h e value of the carport

, as this would lead to an illogical “doubling

- up” of

coverage

. F U M I C ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t P P A w o u l d h a v

e h a d t o p a y a n a

d d i t i o n a l p r e m

i u m

w e r e i t t o h a v

e i n s u r e d t h e c a r

p o r t i s s i m i l a r l y u n p e r s u a s i v

e

. A s d e t a i l e d a b o v

e

, t h e

a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g w a s i n s u r e d f o r a d o l l a r a m o u n t w

h i c h i n c l u d e d t

h e v a l u e o f t h e

c a r p o r t

, a n d p r e m

i u m s a r e c a l c u l a t e d b a s e d o n t h e t o t a l a m o u n t i n s u r e d

, n o t t h e n u m

b e r

o f b u i l d i n g s i n s u r e d

.1 5

¶ 2 6 W e a r e a l s o c o n v i n c e d t h a t t

h e p o l i c y i s a t b e s t a m

b i g u o u s b e c a u s e a l l e x t e r n a l

e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s P P A ’ s p o s i t i o n r a t h e r t h a n F U M I C ’ s

. W e n o t e t h r e e s u c h p i e c e s o f

e v i d e n c e h e r e

. F i r s t

, F U M I C ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e p o l i c y w o u l d l e a d t o t h e

u n s u p p o r t a b l e c o n c l u s i o n t h a

t t h e a d o p t i o n o f B O P

- 5 4 h a d n o e f f e c t w h a t s o e v e r o n t h e

v e r y a s p e c t s o f t h e p o l i c y w h i c h i t w a s i n t e n d e d t o m o d i f y

. S e c o n d

, t

h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g

,

i n t e n t

, a n d a c t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d s i m p l y d o n o t s u p p o r

t F U M I C ’ s v

e r s i o n o f

e v e n t s

. T h i r d

, a

n d p e r h a p s m o s t c o n v

i n c i n g l y

, F U M I C ’ s o w

n i n t e r n a l g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d

n o t e v e n p e r m i t t h e s a l e o f t h e p o l i c y w h i c h F U M I C c l a i m s w a s i s s u e d here.

¶ 2 7 First, FUMIC ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e c a r p o r t w a s n e v e r c o v

e r e d a n d t

h a t B O P

- 5 4

t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t r e d u c e c o v

e r a g e d o e s n o t w i t h s t a n d l o g

i c a l s c r u t i n y

. T h e r e would have

been no reason for BOP

- 54 to be created and added to the policy if its principal goal was

not accomplished

— to add, under “Property Not Covered” in the Businessowne rs

Coverage Form, “Buildings for which no limit of insurance is shown in the

D e c l a r a t i o n s

. ” I f t h e r e w e r e a n y d o u b t t h a t t h i s c h a n g

e d t h e p o l i c y

, t h e l a n g

u a g e i n

B O P

- 5 4 c l e a r s u

p a n y s u c h d o u

b t s

, s t a t i n g t h a t “ THIS ENDORSEMENT CHA NGES THE

POLICY ,” and tha t “[t]his endorsement modifies insurance provided under the

. . .

B u s i n e s s o w

n e r s Coverage Form .” Given that BOP

- 54 modified the policy to provide

that only “

buildings for which a limit of insurance is shown in the D eclarations ” are

covered, it follows tha t prior to BOP

- 5 4 ’ s a d o p t i o n

, a t l e a s t s o m e b u i l d i n g s f o r w h i c h n o

l i m i t o f i n s u r a n c e w a s s h o w n i n t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s w e r e covered by the policy. This

inference sweeps t h e l e g s o u t f r o m u n d e r n e a t

h F U M I C ’ s a r g

u m e n t t h a t t h e p o l i c y a l w a y s1 6

limited coverage to buildings for which a limit of insurance was separately stated in the

D eclaration s.

¶ 2 8 Second , t

h e a c t i o n s o f F U M I C ’ s o w n e m p l o y e e s i l l u s t r a t e h o w d i s i n g e n u o u s i t i s

f o r F U M I C t o n o w c l a i m t h a t c o v e r a g e f o r t h e c a r

p o r t n e v e r e x i s t e d

. Rial Gunlikson,

F U M I C ’ s c l a i m s a d

j u s t e r o n t h i s c a s e

, i n i t i a l l y i n f o r m e d H i l e m a n t h a t t h e c a r p o r t w a s

c o v e r e d

, b u t t h e n s t a t e d t h a

t t h e c a r p o r t w a s i n f

a c t not covered, d u e t o a c h a n g e i n t h e

p o l i c y

. W h e n M r

. H i l e m a n d e m a n d e d t h a t F U M I C i d e n t i f

y w h y

, e x a c t l y

, t h e c a r

p o r t w a s

n o t c o v e r e d b y t h e policy

, F U M I C ’ s V i c e P r e s i d e n t T h o m a s B a r k e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t B O P

5 4 h a d m o d i f

i e d t h e p o l i c y t o e x c l u d e b u i l d i n g s f o r w h i c h n o l i m

i t o f i n s u r a n c e w a s

s h o w n

. N o t u n t i l m

u c h l a t e r

, p r e s u m a b l y w

h e n l e g a l p r o b l e m s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e

r e q u i r e m e n t t o p r o v

i d e n o t i c e o f a n y r e d u c t i o n i n c o v e r a g e w e r e d i s c o v

e r e d

, d i d F U M I C

ever contend that the original policy did not include coverage for the carport.

¶ 2 9 F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h e i n t e n t o f H i l e m a n a n d W i l h e l m w a s c l e a r l y t o i n c l u d e t h e e n t i r e

p r o p e r t y i n t h e p o l i c y

, a n d t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f b o t h H i l e m a n a n d W i l h e l m w a s t h a t

c o v e r a g e h a d b e e n s e c u r e d f o r t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r

t y

. A s W i l h e l m a g r e e d

, i t w o u l d h a v e

b e e n i l l o g

i c a l a n d w i t h o u

t p r e c e d e n

t t o i n s u r e b o t h o f t h e o t

h e r b u i l d i n g s o n t h e p r o p e r t y

b u t n o t t h e c a r p o r t

. A c c o r

d i n g t o H i l e m a n

, w

h e n h e i n q

u i r e d a s t o w

h y t h e l a u

n d r y

b u i l d i n g w a s s e p a r a t e l y s t a t e d o n t h e o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n

, W i l h e l m r e s p o n d e d t h a t a l l

b u i l d i n g s a n d o t h e r s t r

u c t u r e s o n t h e p r

o p e r t y w e r e c o v

e r e d a n d t h a

t i t w o u l d n o t b e

necessary to separatel y list the building s , but that FUMIC “liked to see those buildings to

w h i c h p e o p l e w e r e c o m

i n g a n d g o i n g s p e c i f

i c a l l y i d e n t i f

i e d

. ” W i l h e l m t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e

n e v e r w o u l d h a v

e i n t e n t i o n a

l l y i n s u r e d a p r

o p e r t y w i t h o u t i n s u r i n g t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r t y

,1 7

n e v e r w o u l d h a v

e e x c l u d e d a b u i l d i n g w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c a l l y m e n t i o n i n g i t t o t h e i n s u r e d

,

a n d t h a t h e a s s u m e d t h e c a r

p o r t w a s c o v

e r e d

. H i l e m a n o b v

i o u s l y i n t e n d e d t o p r o c

u r e

coverage for the entire property , and both he and his insurance agent believed he had

done so.

¶ 3 0 No common sense interpretation of the request made of Wilhelm to procure

coverage for Hileman’s property would possibly exclude the carport in the scope of

coverage requested. A “ reasonable consumer of insurance products, ” f r o m w h o s e

p e r s p e c t i v

e w e m u s t a n a l y z e t h e t e r m s o f t h e p o l i c y

, c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y c o n c e i v e t h a t t h e

c a r p o r t w o u l d b e e x cluded a f t e r r e q u e s t i n g n o r m a l

, s t a n d a r d b u s i n e s s o w n e r s ’ c o v e r a g e

f o r t h e p r o p e r t y

. T h e a u

t h o r i t i e s r e l i e d o n b y F U M I C a n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u g g e s t i n g

t h a t H i l e m a n needed to specifically r e q u e s t i n s u r a n c e f o r t h e c a r

p o r t a r e s i m

p l y

i n a p p o s i t e t o s c e n a r i o s s u c h a s t h e i n s t a n t c a s e

, w h e r e a l l s t a n d a r

d c o m m e r c i a l p r o p e r t y

i n s u r a n c e p r

o d u c t s w o u l d i n c l u d e t h e c a r p o r t i n c o v

e r a g e o f t h e c o m

p l e x

. I t q u i t e

l i t e r a l l y w e n t without saying that the parties intended the c arport to be included in the

policy.

¶ 3 1 Lastly, F U M I C ’ s o w n i n t e r n a l g

u i d e l i n e s f

o r c o m m e r c i a l p o l i c i e s w o u l d n o t e v e

n

p e r m i t the issuance of the policy which was allege dly sold to Hileman. F U M I C ’ s

B u s i n e s s o w

n e r s P o l i c y M a n u a l s t a

t e s t h a t c o v e r a g e m u s t b e i n c l u d e d f

o r a l l b u i l d i n g s o n

t h e p r o p e r

t y :

1

. M A N D A T O R

Y C O V E R

A G E S

A

. T h e B u s i n e s s o w

n e r s P o l i c y m

u s t b e w r i t t e n t o p r

o v i d e :1 8 ( 1 ) C o v e r a g e o n A l l b u s i n e s s b u i l d i n g a n d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y

,

e x c e p t p r o p e r t y t h a

t m a y n o t b e e l i g

i b l e w h i c h i s l o c a t e d a t t h e

s a m e p r e m i s e s o r p r e m

i s e s e l s e w

h e r e

.

The hyper

- legalistic view espoused by the District Court that specifically listing two of

t h e t h r e e “ b u i l d i n g s ” o n t h e p r o p e r t y o m i t t e d t h e t h i r d b y i n f

e r e n c e c a n

n o t w i t h s t a n d

s c r u t i n y i n l i g

h t o f t h i s s i m

p l e f a c t

. F U M I C d o e s n o t o f f e r p o l i c i e s w

h i c h d o n o t d o

i n s u r e a l l b u i l d i n g s o n a c o m m e r c i a l p r o p e r t y

, a

n d b e i n g a l o n g

t i m e F U M I C c o m m e r c i a l

i n s u r a n c e c u s t o m e r

, H i l e m a n c a n n o t b e f a u l t e d f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e t e r m s o f t h e i n surance

policy as conforming to the guidelines of all other FUMIC policies.

¶ 3 2 T h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s m u c h m o r e r e a s o n a b l y i n t e r p r e t e d t o i n c l u d e c o v

e r a g e f o r

t h e c a r p o r t

. B u t w e n e e d n o t g

o t h i s f a r

— w e n e e d o n l y c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t w a s

a m b i g u o u s i n t h e e y e s o f a r e a s o n a b l e c o n s u m e r o f i n s u r a n c e p r o d u c t s

. I t i s a s i s y p h e a n

t a s k e v e n f o r a t r a i n e d p r

o f e s s i o n a l t o d e t e r m

i n e t h e p r e c i s e s c o p e o f c o v e r a g e f r o m t h e

p o l i c y ’ s c o n f

u s i n g a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r o v i s i o n s

. A s a n y a m

b i g u i t y i n a n i n s u r a n c e

p o l i c y m u s t b e c o n s t r

u e d i n f a v o r o f e x t e n d i n g c o v

e r a g e , and as a n ambiguity exists

“ where the contract

. . . i s r e a s o n a b l y s u b j e c t t o t w o d i f

f e r e n t i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n s

, ” w e

c o n c l u d e t

h a t P P A ’ s p o l i c y m

u s t b e i n t e r

p r e t e d t o i n c l u d e c o v

e r a g e f o r t h e c a r p o r t a s a

m a t t e r o f l a w

. M

i t c h e l l , ¶ 26.

¶ 3 3 We reverse t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t o F U M I C

. G i v e n o u r

r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e

, w e d o n o t r e a c h t h e o t h e r i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w

.

¶ 3 4 R e v

e r s e d a n d r e m a n d e d f

o r e n t r y o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f P P A

.

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T1 9

W e c o n c u r :

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

/ S / P A T R I C I A C O T T E R

/ S / M I C H A E L E W H E A T

/ S / J I M R I C E